State v. Moore

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Moore

DecidedFebruary 1, 2012

Docket2012-UP-059

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Moore (State v. Moore) 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. Moore, (S.C. Ct. App. 2012).

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.

Frances J. Moore, Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County
J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-059
Heard December 7, 2011 Filed February 1, 2012

AFFIRMED

John Dennis Delgado, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Christina T. Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Frances J. Moore appeals her convictions for murder, criminal conspiracy, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. She argues the trial court erred in overruling her objections and denying her motion for a mistrial after witness testimony relayed accounts between the witness and her codefendant implicating her. Specifically, she maintains the rulings permitted violations of her Confrontation Clause rights. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821 (2006) (stating the right to confrontation "bars 'admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant . . . had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.'" (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004)); State v. Davis, 371 S.C. 170, 178, 638 S.E.2d 57, 61 (2006) (holding witness testimony relaying a co-conspirator's account implicating the defendant did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights because the account "clearly was made outside of an investigatory or judicial context" and therefore was not testimonial).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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.

Frances J. Moore, Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County
J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-059
Heard December 7, 2011 Filed February 1, 2012

AFFIRMED

John Dennis Delgado, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Christina T. Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Frances J. Moore appeals her convictions for murder, criminal conspiracy, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. She argues the trial court erred in overruling her objections and denying her motion for a mistrial after witness testimony relayed accounts between the witness and her codefendant implicating her. Specifically, she maintains the rulings permitted violations of her Confrontation Clause rights. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821 (2006) (stating the right to confrontation "bars 'admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant . . . had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.'" (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004)); State v. Davis, 371 S.C. 170, 178, 638 S.E.2d 57, 61 (2006) (holding witness testimony relaying a co-conspirator's account implicating the defendant did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights because the account "clearly was made outside of an investigatory or judicial context" and therefore was not testimonial).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Moore, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moore-scctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack