In the Matter of Randal Wade McCoy

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 11, 2017
• Docket: 2017-UP-033
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Randal Wade McCoy, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000485

Appeal From Aiken County G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-033 Submitted November 1, 2016 – Filed January 11, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: In re Manigo, 389 S.C. 96, 106, 697 S.E.2d 629, 633-34 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The admissibility of an expert's testimony is within the trial [court's] sound discretion, whose decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); id. at 106, 697 S.E.2d at 633 ("To constitute an abuse of discretion, the conclusions of the trial [court] must lack evidentiary support or be controlled by an error of law."); State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 378, 580 S.E.2d 785, 794 (Ct. App. 2003) (stating this court will reverse a "trial [court's] decision regarding the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence . . . only in exceptional circumstances"); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-80(D) (Supp. 2016) (permitting the circuit court to appoint an expert to evaluate "whether the person is a sexually violent predator"); Rule 702, SCRE ("If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."); State v. White, 382 S.C. 265, 270, 676 S.E.2d 684, 686 (2009) ("[A]ll expert testimony under Rule 702, SCRE, imposes on the trial courts an affirmative and meaningful gatekeeping duty."); id. (finding the trial court's gatekeeping function includes "ensuring the proposed expert testimony meets a reliability threshold for the jury's ultimate consideration"); State v. Jones, 343 S.C. 562, 572, 541 S.E.2d 813, 818 (2001) ("Scientific evidence is admissible under Rule 702, SCRE, if the trial [court] determines: (1) the evidence will assist the trier of fact; (2) the expert witness is qualified; (3) the underlying science is reliable, applying the factors found in State v. Jones, 273 S.C. 723, 259 S.E.2d 120 (1979); and (4) the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect."); Jones, 343 S.C. at 573, 541 S.E.2d at 819 ("The Jones reliability factors take into consideration: (1) the publications and peer reviews of the technique; (2) prior application of the method to the type of evidence involved in the case; (3) the quality control procedures used to ensure reliability; and (4) the consistency of the method with recognized scientific laws and procedures.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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