State v. McMillian

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 Supreme Court

---

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Brian Patrick McMillian,        Appellant.

---

Appeal From Richland County
J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

---

Memorandum Opinion No. 2004-MO-011
Heard March 2, 2004 - Filed April 5, 2004

---

AFFIRMED

---

Robert William Mills, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, of Columbia, and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, of Columbia, for Respondent.

---

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Issue 1: State v. Beckham, 334 S.C. 302, 513 S.E.2d 606 (1999)(lack of conclusive evidentiary link goes to weight rather than admissibility); Issue 2: State v. Rosemond, 335 S.C. 593, 596, 518 S.E.2d 588 (1999)(relevance, materiality and admissibility of photographs are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court); Issue 3: State v. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 479 S.E.2d 57, cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1277 (1997) (trial court’s ruling on motion for mistrial will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law); Issue 4: Humphries v. State, 351 S.C. 362, 570 S.E.2d 160 (2002) (solicitor's closing argument permissible where it stays within the record and reasonable inferences to it); Issue 5: State v. Burton, 302 S.C. 494, 397 S.E.2d 90 (1990) (jury instruction sufficient if, when considered as a whole, it covers the law applicable to case).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, PLEICONES, JJ., and Acting Justice Marc H. Westbrook, concur.