From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Haynes

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
May 6, 2015
Appellate Case No. 2013-000468 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 6, 2015)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2013-000468 Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-228

05-06-2015

The State, Respondent, v. John Edward Haynes, Appellant.

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of Orangeburg, for Respondent.


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. Appeal From Calhoun County
Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of Orangeburg, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Cope, 405 S.C. 317, 343, 748 S.E.2d 194, 208 (2013) ("Generally, the admission of expert testimony is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court." (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 343-44, 748 S.E.2d at 208 ("Thus, we will not reverse the trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony absent a prejudicial abuse of discretion."); State v. Burton, 302 S.C. 494, 499, 397 S.E.2d 90, 92 (1990) (recognizing an expert may give an opinion based on a hypothetical question, but the hypothetical question "should be based upon facts supported by the record"); State v. Vaughn, 268 S.C. 119, 125, 232 S.E.2d 328, 330 (1977) ("[V]oluntary intoxication, where it has not produced permanent insanity, is never an excuse for or a defense to crime, regardless of whether the intent involved be general or specific."); State v. Santiago, 370 S.C. 153, 162, 634 S.E.2d 23, 28 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[T]he diminished capacity defense is not recognized in South Carolina."). AFFIRMED. THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

State v. Haynes

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
May 6, 2015
Appellate Case No. 2013-000468 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 6, 2015)
Case details for

State v. Haynes

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. John Edward Haynes, Appellant.

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: May 6, 2015

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2013-000468 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 6, 2015)