State v. Haynes

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Haynes

DecidedMay 6, 2015

Docket2015-UP-228

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Haynes (State v. Haynes) 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. Haynes, (S.C. Ct. App. 2015).

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.

John Edward Haynes, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000468

Appeal From Calhoun County Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-228 Submitted April 1, 2015 – Filed May 6, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Cope, 405 S.C. 317, 343, 748 S.E.2d 194, 208 (2013) ("Generally, the admission of expert testimony is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court." (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 343-44, 748 S.E.2d at 208 ("Thus, we will not reverse the trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony absent a prejudicial abuse of discretion."); State v. Burton, 302 S.C. 494, 499, 397 S.E.2d 90, 92 (1990) (recognizing an expert may give an opinion based on a hypothetical question, but the hypothetical question "should be based upon facts supported by the record"); State v. Vaughn, 268 S.C. 119, 125, 232 S.E.2d 328, 330 (1977) ("[V]oluntary intoxication, where it has not produced permanent insanity, is never an excuse for or a defense to crime, regardless of whether the intent involved be general or specific."); State v. Santiago, 370 S.C. 153, 162, 634 S.E.2d 23, 28 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[T]he diminished capacity defense is not recognized in South Carolina.").

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, 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.

John Edward Haynes, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000468

Appeal From Calhoun County Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-228 Submitted April 1, 2015 – Filed May 6, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Cope, 405 S.C. 317, 343, 748 S.E.2d 194, 208 (2013) ("Generally, the admission of expert testimony is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court." (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 343-44, 748 S.E.2d at 208 ("Thus, we will not reverse the trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony absent a prejudicial abuse of discretion."); State v. Burton, 302 S.C. 494, 499, 397 S.E.2d 90, 92 (1990) (recognizing an expert may give an opinion based on a hypothetical question, but the hypothetical question "should be based upon facts supported by the record"); State v. Vaughn, 268 S.C. 119, 125, 232 S.E.2d 328, 330 (1977) ("[V]oluntary intoxication, where it has not produced permanent insanity, is never an excuse for or a defense to crime, regardless of whether the intent involved be general or specific."); State v. Santiago, 370 S.C. 153, 162, 634 S.E.2d 23, 28 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[T]he diminished capacity defense is not recognized in South Carolina.").

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Haynes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-haynes-scctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack