State v. Holt

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 Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Quentin Holt, Appellant.

Appeal from Georgetown County
Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-253
Submitted April 2, 2012 Filed April 25, 2012 

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer and Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, both of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Quentin Holt appeals his convictions of two counts of distribution of crack cocaine, arguing the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony because the instrument used in forming the expert's opinion was unreliable.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), 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, 382 S.C. 265, 269, 676 S.E.2d 684, 686 (2009) ("A trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony will not be reversed absent a prejudicial abuse of discretion."); id. at 270, 676 S.E.2d at 686 ("All expert testimony must satisfy the Rule 702 criteria, and that includes the trial court's gatekeeping function in ensuring the proposed expert testimony meets a reliability threshold for the jury's ultimate consideration."); State v. Jones, 343 S.C. 562, 572, 541 S.E.2d 813, 818 (2001) (holding scientific evidence is admissible under Rule 702, SCRE, if the trial court determines the underlying science is reliable after applying the factors set forth in State v. Jones, 273 S.C. 723, 259 S.E.2d 120 (1979)); Jones, 343 S.C. at 573, 541 S.E.2d at 819 (holding one of the Jones reliability factors taken into consideration is the quality control procedures used to ensure reliability).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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