Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-259 - State v. Geathers

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Craig Geathers, Appellant.


Appeal From Georgetown County
Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-259  
Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed May 2, 2012


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Craig Geathers appeals his convictions of armed robbery and kidnapping, arguing the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant testimony.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dickerson, 395 S.C. 101, 116, 716 S.E.2d 895, 903 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the [trial] court's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion."); Rule 401, SCRE ("'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 35-36, 538 S.E.2d 248, 256 (2000) (holding a statement that related to the defendant's motive was relevant and, therefore, admissible); Rule 404(a), SCRE (noting character evidence is inadmissible only when used for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith); State v. Sweat, 362 S.C. 117, 132, 606 S.E.2d 508, 516 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting a trial court is given broad discretion in making a Rule 403, SCRE, determination). 

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.