State v. Moore

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 Supreme Court

The State, Respondent,

v.

Dominique Donte Moore, Petitioner.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-MO-051
Heard September 16, 2009 Filed September 28, 2009 

AFFIRMED IN RESULT

James W. Boyd, of Rock Hill, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Assistant Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals unpublished opinion in State v. Moore, 2008-UP-135 (Ct. App. 2008).  Having carefully reviewed the record and applicable law, we agree with the court of appeals in finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's admission of the challenged evidence.  We affirm in result pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR.  However, we vacate the following sentence from the court of appeals opinion: "Because the money was relevant evidence, analysis of whether [Petitioner] was prejudiced is unwarranted."  Id.  That is not a correct statement of law, for all admissible evidence is subject to analysis under Rule 403, SCRE.  Here, we find the admission of the challenged evidence was proper and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

AFFIRMED IN RESULT.

TOAL, C.J., WALLER, PLEICONES, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.