Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-334 - State v. Wright

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.

Jeremy Saquan Wright, Appellant.


Appeal From Dillon County
Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-334  
Submitted May 1, 2012 – Filed May 30, 2012


AFFIRMED


Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Senior Assistant Attorney General William Salter, III, all of Columbia; and Solicitor William B. Rogers, Jr., of Bennettsville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jeremy Saquan Wright appeals his convictions of murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to cross-examine a witness regarding bias.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Quattlebaum, 338 S.C. 441, 450, 527 S.E.2d 105, 109 (2000) ("As a general rule, a trial court's ruling on the proper scope of cross-examination will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 33, 538 S.E.2d 248, 255 (2000) ("The right to a meaningful cross-examination of an adverse witness is included in the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers."); id. at 33-34, 538 S.E.2d at 255 ("This does not mean, however, that trial courts conducting criminal trials lose their usual discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination."); id. at 34, 538 S.E.2d at 255 ("On the contrary, trial [courts] retain wide latitude . . . to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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