State v. Bell

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 13, 2009
• Docket: 2009-UP-027
• Status: Unpublished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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Chico Jermaine Bell, Appellant.

---

Appeal from Richland County
Judge Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-027
Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January 13, 2009  

---

AFFIRMED

---

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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Michelle J. Parsons, and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Chico Jermaine Bell appeals his conviction for armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in requiring Bell to display his tattoo to the jury. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 422, 535 S.E.2d 431, 437 (2000). (“Evidence concerning a defendant’s tattoo or nickname is not prejudicial when used to prove something at issue in a trial, such as the identification of the defendant.”); State v. Moore, 308 S.C. 349, 351, 417 S.E.2d 869, 870 (1992) (“Constitutional safeguards are invaded only when the defendant is required to give testimonial evidence against himself.  They do not extend to the refusal by a defendant to reveal those physical traits that may be made by ordinary observation.”); State v. Pinkard, 365 S.C. 541, 543, 617 S.E.2d 397, 398 (Ct. App. 2005) (providing the display of a tattoo is non-testimonial evidence).   

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

---

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