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. Jeremy Smith, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000146

Appeal From Sumter County W. Jeffrey Young, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-181 Submitted March 1, 2015 – Filed April 8, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mary Williams Leddon, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest Adolphus Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 511, 702 S.E.2d 395, 399 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[R]ulings on the admission of evidence are within the trial court's discretion and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); id. at 515, 702 S.E.2d at 402 ("In South Carolina, an individual asserting a Brady[1] violation must demonstrate that the evidence: (1) was favorable to the accused; (2) was in the possession of or known by the prosecution; (3) was suppressed by the State; and (4) was material to the accused's guilt or innocence or was impeaching."); id. at 518, 702 S.E.2d at 403 ("While Brady imposes a duty on the State to disclose material evidence favorable to the defendant, the State has the additional duty, albeit not an absolute duty, to preserve evidence that is favorable to the defendant."); id. at 518, 702 S.E.2d at 404 ("[A] defendant must demonstrate either that [(1)] the State destroyed evidence in bad faith, or [(2)] the [S]tate destroyed evidence that possessed an exculpatory value that is apparent before the evidence was destroyed and the defendant cannot obtain other evidence of comparable value by other means."); Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988) (holding "unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law").

AFFIRMED.2 THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

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