commission of prejudicial legal error in South Carolina

2024See State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 288 , 540 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2000) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is at the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Wyatt, 421 S.C. 306, 310 , 806 S.E.2d 708, 710 (2017) ("When a defendant challenges the admissibility of a witness's identification, trial courts employ a two-pronged inquiry to determine whether due process requires suppression."); id. ("First, the court must determine whether the identification resulted from '

2024See State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 288 , 540 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2000) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is at the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Wyatt, 421 S.C. 306, 310 , 806 S.E.2d 708, 710 (2017) ("When a defendant challenges the admissibility of a witness's identification, trial courts employ a two-pronged inquiry to determine whether due process requires suppression."); id. ("First, the court must determine whether the identification resulted from '

2023See State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2004) ("A criminal defendant may be depriv

2023See State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2004) ("A criminal defendant may be depriv

2023See State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2004) ("A criminal defendant may be depriv

2023See State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2004) ("A criminal defendant may be depriv

2023See State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2004) ("A criminal defendant may be depriv

2023See State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2004) ("A criminal defendant may be depriv

2018PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Govan, 372 S.C. 552, 556 , 643 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198-99 (1972) (setting forth a two-part inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification: first, a court must determine whether the identification process was unduly suggestive; ne

2018PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Govan, 372 S.C. 552, 556 , 643 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198-99 (1972) (setting forth a two-part inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification: first, a court must determine whether the identification process was unduly suggestive; ne

2023See State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2004) ("A criminal defendant may be depriv

2023See State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2004) ("A criminal defendant may be depriv

2023See State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2004) ("A criminal defendant may be depriv

2023See State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2004) ("A criminal defendant may be depriv

2024See State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 288 , 540 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2000) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is at the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Wyatt, 421 S.C. 306, 310 , 806 S.E.2d 708, 710 (2017) ("When a defendant challenges the admissibility of a witness's identification, trial courts employ a two-pronged inquiry to determine whether due process requires suppression."); id. ("First, the court must determine whether the identification resulted from '

2024See State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 288 , 540 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2000) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is at the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Wyatt, 421 S.C. 306, 310 , 806 S.E.2d 708, 710 (2017) ("When a defendant challenges the admissibility of a witness's identification, trial courts employ a two-pronged inquiry to determine whether due process requires suppression."); id. ("First, the court must determine whether the identification resulted from '

2023See State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2004) ("A criminal defendant may be depriv

2023See State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2004) ("A criminal defendant may be depriv

2017PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 3

2016See State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 288 , 540 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2000) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is at the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); id. at 287 , 540 S.E.2d at 447 ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification." (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972))); id. (stating Neil v. Biggers requires a court to determine (1) whether the identification process was unduly

2016As to whether the trial court erred in admitting identification evidence: State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 288 , 540 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2000) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is at the trial judge's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); Gibbs v. State, 403 S.C. 484 , 494, 744 S.E.2d 170, 175 (2013) (holding although single person show-ups are considered inherently suggestive and are disfavored in the law, they have been deemed proper when the show-up identification occurs shortly after

2016As to whether the trial court erred in admitting identification evidence: State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 288 , 540 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2000) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is at the trial judge's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); Gibbs v. State, 403 S.C. 484 , 494, 744 S.E.2d 170, 175 (2013) (holding although single person show-ups are considered inherently suggestive and are disfavored in the law, they have been deemed proper when the show-up identification occurs shortly after

2016PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 288 , 540 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2000) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is at the trial [court]'s discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); id. ("However, an eyewitness identification which is unreliable because of suggestive line-up procedures is constitutionally inadmissible as a matter of law."); State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502-03 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("An i

2015We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Govan, 372 S.C. 552, 556 , 643 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial judge's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Singleton, 395 S.C. 6, 14 , 716 S.E.2d 332, 336 (Ct. App. 2011) (explaining that in the two-pronged inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification, the court first ascertains "whether the identification process wa

2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification."); id. (stating the first pro

2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127 , 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification."); id. (stating the first pro

2011State v. McCord , 349 S.C. 477, 481 , 562 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2002).

2011State v. McCord , 349 S.C. 477, 481 , 562 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2002).

2023See State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2004) ("A criminal defendant may be depriv

2023See State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2004) ("A criminal defendant may be depriv

2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial judge's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Lewis, 363 S.C. 37, 42 , 609 S.E.2d 515, 518 (2005) ("We conclude, as the majority of courts have, that Neil v. Biggers[1] does not apply to in-court identifications and that the remedy for any alleged suggestiveness o

2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 356 S.C. 496, 502 , 589 S.E.2d 781, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial judge's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Lewis, 363 S.C. 37, 42 , 609 S.E.2d 515, 518 (2005) ("We conclude, as the majority of courts have, that Neil v. Biggers[1] does not apply to in-court identifications and that the remedy for any alleged suggestiveness o

2018PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Govan, 372 S.C. 552, 556 , 643 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198-99 (1972) (setting forth a two-part inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification: first, a court must determine whether the identification process was unduly suggestive; ne

2018PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Govan, 372 S.C. 552, 556 , 643 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198-99 (1972) (setting forth a two-part inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification: first, a court must determine whether the identification process was unduly suggestive; ne

2018PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Govan, 372 S.C. 552, 556 , 643 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198-99 (1972) (setting forth a two-part inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification: first, a court must determine whether the identification process was unduly suggestive; ne

2018PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Govan, 372 S.C. 552, 556 , 643 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198-99 (1972) (setting forth a two-part inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification: first, a court must determine whether the identification process was unduly suggestive; ne

2018PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Govan, 372 S.C. 552, 556 , 643 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198-99 (1972) (setting forth a two-part inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification: first, a court must determine whether the identification process was unduly suggestive; ne

2017PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 288 , 540 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2000) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is at the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when t

2017PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 288 , 540 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2000) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is at the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when t

2015We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Govan, 372 S.C. 552, 556 , 643 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial judge's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Singleton, 395 S.C. 6, 14 , 716 S.E.2d 332, 336 (Ct. App. 2011) (explaining that in the two-pronged inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification, the court first ascertains "whether the identification process wa

2015We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Govan, 372 S.C. 552, 556 , 643 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial judge's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Singleton, 395 S.C. 6, 14 , 716 S.E.2d 332, 336 (Ct. App. 2011) (explaining that in the two-pronged inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification, the court first ascertains "whether the identification process wa

2015We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Govan, 372 S.C. 552, 556 , 643 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial judge's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Singleton, 395 S.C. 6, 14 , 716 S.E.2d 332, 336 (Ct. App. 2011) (explaining that in the two-pronged inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification, the court first ascertains "whether the identification process wa

2015We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Govan, 372 S.C. 552, 556 , 643 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial judge's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Singleton, 395 S.C. 6, 14 , 716 S.E.2d 332, 336 (Ct. App. 2011) (explaining that in the two-pronged inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification, the court first ascertains "whether the identification process wa

2015We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Govan, 372 S.C. 552, 556 , 643 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial judge's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Singleton, 395 S.C. 6, 14 , 716 S.E.2d 332, 336 (Ct. App. 2011) (explaining that in the two-pronged inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification, the court first ascertains "whether the identification process wa

2015We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Govan, 372 S.C. 552, 556 , 643 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to admit an eyewitness identification is in the trial judge's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Singleton, 395 S.C. 6, 14 , 716 S.E.2d 332, 336 (Ct. App. 2011) (explaining that in the two-pronged inquiry to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification, the court first ascertains "whether the identification process wa

2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 288 , 540 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2000) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is at the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 498 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 365 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C.

2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 288 , 540 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2000) ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is at the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 498 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 365 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C.

2003The court must next decide whether the out-of-court statement was nevertheless so reliable that no substantial likelihood of misidentification was possible.); State v. Blassingame , 338 S.C. 240 , 525 S.E.2d 535 (Ct. App. 1999) (Single person show-ups are disfavored because they are suggestive by their nature.); Id. at 251, 525 S.E.2d at 541 (However, an identification may be reliable under the totality of the circumstances even when a suggestive procedure has been used.); State v. Patterson , 337 S.C. 215 , 522 S.E.2d 845 (Ct. App. 1999) (Suggestiveness alone does not mandate the exclusion of

2003The court must next decide whether the out-of-court statement was nevertheless so reliable that no substantial likelihood of misidentification was possible.); State v. Blassingame , 338 S.C. 240 , 525 S.E.2d 535 (Ct. App. 1999) (Single person show-ups are disfavored because they are suggestive by their nature.); Id. at 251, 525 S.E.2d at 541 (However, an identification may be reliable under the totality of the circumstances even when a suggestive procedure has been used.); State v. Patterson , 337 S.C. 215 , 522 S.E.2d 845 (Ct. App. 1999) (Suggestiveness alone does not mandate the exclusion of

2002“An in-court identification of an accused is inadmissible if a suggestive out-of-court identification procedure created a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” State v. Cheeseboro, 346 S.C. 526, 540 , 552 S.E.2d 300, 307-08 (2001) (citing Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977)).

2002“An in-court identification of an accused is inadmissible if a suggestive out-of-court identification procedure created a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” State v. Cheeseboro, 346 S.C. 526, 540 , 552 S.E.2d 300, 307-08 (2001) (citing Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977)).