Beneventano v. Gonzalez

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

Kay Runay Beneventano, Appellant,

v.

Michael Gonzalez and Jenner Trucking & Construction, Inc., Respondents.

Appeal From Berkeley County
 Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No.    2007-MO-031
Heard May 1, 2007 Filed June 4, 2007

AFFIRMED

Max G. Mahaffee and Michael David Wood, both of Charleston, for Appellant.

Kirby D. Shealy, III, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Connor v. City of Forest Acres, 363 S.C. 460, 611 S.E.2d 905 (2005) (admission or exclusion of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion); Hanahan v. Simpson, 326 S.C. 140, 485 S.E.2d 903 (1997) (to warrant reversal based on the admission or exclusion of evidence, appellant must prove both the error of the ruling and the resulting prejudice, i.e., there is a reasonable probability the jury's verdict was influenced by the wrongly admitted or excluded evidence); and Rule 701, SCRE (opinion testimony of lay witness is limited to those opinions or inferences which are rationally based on the perception of the witness, are helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and do not require special knowledge, skill, experience or training).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, BURNETT, PLEICONES, JJ., and Acting Justice J. Michael Baxley, concur.