State v. Abney

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Abney

DecidedOctober 4, 2017

Docket2017-UP-367

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Abney (State v. Abney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Abney, (S.C. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Leo Abney, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000314

Appeal From Saluda County William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-367 Submitted September 1, 2017 – Filed October 4, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Vann Henry Gunter, Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, all for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557, 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the [circuit] court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Joseph, 328 S.C. 352, 364, 491 S.E.2d 275, 281 (Ct. App. 1997) ("A party offering into evidence fungible items such as drugs . . . must establish a chain of custody as far as practicable."); State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 95, 708 S.E.2d 750, 755 (2011) ("The ultimate goal of chain of custody requirements is simply to ensure that the item is what it is purported to be."); State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 6, 647 S.E.2d 202, 205 (2007) ("Where an analyzed substance . . . has passed through several hands, the identity of individuals who acquired the evidence and what was done with the evidence between the taking and the analysis must not be left to conjecture."); Hatcher, 392 S.C. at 93, 708 S.E.2d at 753-54 ("[W]here all individuals in the chain are, in fact, identified and the manner of handling is reasonably demonstrated, it is not an abuse of discretion for the [circuit court] to admit the evidence in the absence of proof of tampering, bad faith, or ill-motive.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and HILL, JJ., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Leo Abney, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000314

Appeal From Saluda County William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-367 Submitted September 1, 2017 – Filed October 4, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Vann Henry Gunter, Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, all for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557, 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the [circuit] court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Joseph, 328 S.C. 352, 364, 491 S.E.2d 275, 281 (Ct. App. 1997) ("A party offering into evidence fungible items such as drugs . . . must establish a chain of custody as far as practicable."); State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 95, 708 S.E.2d 750, 755 (2011) ("The ultimate goal of chain of custody requirements is simply to ensure that the item is what it is purported to be."); State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 6, 647 S.E.2d 202, 205 (2007) ("Where an analyzed substance . . . has passed through several hands, the identity of individuals who acquired the evidence and what was done with the evidence between the taking and the analysis must not be left to conjecture."); Hatcher, 392 S.C. at 93, 708 S.E.2d at 753-54 ("[W]here all individuals in the chain are, in fact, identified and the manner of handling is reasonably demonstrated, it is not an abuse of discretion for the [circuit court] to admit the evidence in the absence of proof of tampering, bad faith, or ill-motive.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and HILL, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Abney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-abney-scctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack