State v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Taylor

DecidedMarch 30, 2009

Docket2009-UP-148

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Taylor (State v. Taylor) 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. Taylor, (S.C. Ct. App. 2009).

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.

Jimmy R. Taylor, Appellant.

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Diane S. Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-148
Submitted March 2, 2009 Filed March 30, 2009

AFFIRMED

Everett K. Chandler, of Aiken, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor David M. Pascoe, of Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jimmy R. Taylor appeals his conviction for felony driving under the influence. Taylor alleges the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the States expert witness after the State allegedly violated a pre-trial agreement concerning the subject of the expert testimony. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Jamison, 372 S.C. 649, 652, 643 S.E.2d 700, 701 (Ct. App. 2007) (The qualification of a witness as an expert and the admissibility of his or her testimony are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion and prejudice to the opposing party.); State v. Johnson, 306 S.C. 119, 127-28, 410 S.E.2d 547, 552-53 (1991) (holding there is no reversible error where the defendant fails to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the violation of a pre-trial agreement with the solicitor and the solicitor attempts in good faith to comply with the agreement).

AFFIRMED.[1]

HEARN, C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, 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.

Jimmy R. Taylor, Appellant.

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Diane S. Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-148
Submitted March 2, 2009 Filed March 30, 2009

AFFIRMED

Everett K. Chandler, of Aiken, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor David M. Pascoe, of Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jimmy R. Taylor appeals his conviction for felony driving under the influence. Taylor alleges the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the States expert witness after the State allegedly violated a pre-trial agreement concerning the subject of the expert testimony. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Jamison, 372 S.C. 649, 652, 643 S.E.2d 700, 701 (Ct. App. 2007) (The qualification of a witness as an expert and the admissibility of his or her testimony are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion and prejudice to the opposing party.); State v. Johnson, 306 S.C. 119, 127-28, 410 S.E.2d 547, 552-53 (1991) (holding there is no reversible error where the defendant fails to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the violation of a pre-trial agreement with the solicitor and the solicitor attempts in good faith to comply with the agreement).

AFFIRMED.[1]

HEARN, C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Taylor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-taylor-scctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack