State v. Caldwell, 22171

Citation322 S.E.2d 662,283 S.C. 350
Decision Date12 September 1984
Docket NumberNo. 22171,22171
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Richard CALDWELL, Appellant. . Heard

Herman E. Cox, E. Perry Edwards, Greenville, and David E. Turnipseed, Spartanburg, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. Charles H. Richardson, Columbia, and Sol. Claude A. Taylor, Jr., Seventh Judicial Circuit, Spartanburg, for respondent.

NESS, Justice:

Appellant Richard Caldwell was indicted for procuring the burning of his house and was convicted of arson. We affirm.

Caldwell paid Kelvin Boyce to burn his house when he was out of town. While incarcerated, Boyce revealed his role in the arson to his cellmate, Paul Parish, Jr., who informed his attorney, Gene Adams, who notified SLED. An investigation followed which led to Caldwell's conviction.

Appellant alleges the trial court erred in admitting two hearsay statements. We disagree.

Adams testified that Parish told him of Boyce's incriminating statements concerning the arson. In State v. Huggins, 275 S.C. 229, 269 S.E.2d 334 (1980) we held the fact testimony is hearsay is unimportant if the declarant testifies and is available for cross examination. Boyce and Parish testified at trial and both were cross examined. The admission of Boyce's statement to Parish through Adams was proper.

Adams also testified about a conversation he had with Parish's father. As there was no objection at trial, it may not be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Newton, 274 S.C. 287, 262 S.E.2d 906 (1980).

Appellant next contends it was error for the trial court to refuse to qualify a volunteer fire chief as an expert. We disagree.

Qualification of a witness as an expert is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Cunningham, 275 S.C. 189, 268 S.E.2d 289 (1980). Additionally, this witness's opinion (that the fire was caused by shorted wiring rather than arson) was brought out by appellant during his cross examination of the fire chief as State's witness.

Appellant argues the trial court erred in refusing to allow testimony about the replacement cost of appellant's lake house and the amount of insurance coverage. Since the value of the lake house was allowed, the replacement cost was irrelevant.

Appellant's remaining exceptions are disposed of under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Court and appellant's conviction is affirmed.


To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Clark v. Ross, 0406
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 21 d3 Novembro d3 1984 basis for reversal where the out-of-court declarant later testifies at trial and is available for cross-examination. State v. Caldwell, S.C., 322 S.E.2d 662 (1984); State v. Huggins, 275 S.C. 229, 269 S.E.2d 334 We note also Dr. Sims testified at trial that he recognized Saturday morning......
  • State v. Robinson, 23481
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 1 d1 Abril d1 1991
    ...any alleged pretext and this issue is not preserved on appeal. State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 377 S.E.2d 581 (1989); State v. Caldwell, 283 S.C. 350, 322 S.E.2d 662 (1984). In any event, based on the record, we find appellant's claims of pretext to be without support. As to the striking of Ju......
  • Brown v. La France Industries, a Div. of Riegel Textile Corp., 0525
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 22 d1 Abril d1 1985
    ...witness in a workers' compensation case is a matter resting largely within the discretion of the Commission. See State v. Caldwell, 283 S.C. 350, 322 S.E.2d 662 (1984); Prince v. Associated Petroleum Carriers, 262 S.C. 358, 204 S.E.2d 575 (1974); Micciche v. Forest Hill Cemetery Ass'n, 46 L......
  • State v. Schumpert
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 22 d1 Março d1 1993
    ...was raised at trial regarding Odell's qualification as an expert. This issue is therefore not properly before us. State v. Caldwell, 283 S.C. 350, 322 S.E.2d 662 (1984). As to Strait's qualification, we find no error. The qualification of a witness as an expert falls largely within the tria......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT