State v. Ramirez

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Ramirez

DecidedOctober 15, 2008

Docket2008-UP-585

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Ramirez (State v. Ramirez) 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. Ramirez, (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Evelia Ramirez, Appellant.

Appeal From Saluda County
James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-585
Submitted October 1, 2008 Filed October 15, 2008

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellant Defender, Wanda H. Carter, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Harold M Coombs, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this criminal appeal, Evelia Ramirez argues the trial court erred in admitting certain expert testimony regarding the level of force needed to inflict the victims injuries because the issue was a factual issue within the province of the jury. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 702, SCRE (If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.); State v. White, 372 S.C. 364, 373, 642 S.E.2d 607, 611 (Ct. App. 2007) (cert. granted, Nov. 19, 2007) (holding the trial court has the discretion to qualify an expert witness and admit the experts testimony); Gooding v. St. Francis Xavier Hosp., 326 S.C. 248, 252-53, 487 S.E.2d 596, 598 (1997) (To be competent to testify as an expert, a witness must have acquired by reason of study or experience or both such knowledge and skill in a profession or science that [s]he is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on the particular subject of h[er] testimony.).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, 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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Evelia Ramirez, Appellant.

Appeal From Saluda County
James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-585
Submitted October 1, 2008 Filed October 15, 2008

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellant Defender, Wanda H. Carter, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Harold M Coombs, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this criminal appeal, Evelia Ramirez argues the trial court erred in admitting certain expert testimony regarding the level of force needed to inflict the victims injuries because the issue was a factual issue within the province of the jury. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 702, SCRE (If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.); State v. White, 372 S.C. 364, 373, 642 S.E.2d 607, 611 (Ct. App. 2007) (cert. granted, Nov. 19, 2007) (holding the trial court has the discretion to qualify an expert witness and admit the experts testimony); Gooding v. St. Francis Xavier Hosp., 326 S.C. 248, 252-53, 487 S.E.2d 596, 598 (1997) (To be competent to testify as an expert, a witness must have acquired by reason of study or experience or both such knowledge and skill in a profession or science that [s]he is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on the particular subject of h[er] testimony.).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Ramirez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ramirez-scctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack