State v. Allen A. Fields

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: November 17, 2021
• Docket: 2019-001393
• Status: Unpublished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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Allen Angelo Fields, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001393

Appeal From Charleston County Bentley Price, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-408 Submitted November 1, 2021 – Filed November 17, 2021

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Allen Angelo Fields appeals his convictions for armed robbery and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime and his aggregate sentence of thirteen years' imprisonment. On appeal, Fields argues the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a witness's in-court identification when the witness previously identified someone other than Fields during an out-of-court photo lineup.

Because Fields cross-examined the witness and addressed her in-court identification during closing argument, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the witness's in-court identification of Fields. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502, 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial judge's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Lewis, 363 S.C. 37, 42, 609 S.E.2d 515, 518 (2005) ("We conclude, as the majority of courts have, that Neil v. Biggers[1] does not apply to in-court identifications and that the remedy for any alleged suggestiveness of an in-court identification is cross-examination and argument.").

AFFIRMED.2

HUFF, THOMAS, and, GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

1 409 U.S. 188 (1972). 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.