# State v. Pagan

> Supreme Court of South Carolina · June 19, 2006 · 369 S.C. 201

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9586011

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE, Respondent, v. Charles PAGAN, Petitioner
- **Court:** Supreme Court of South Carolina
- **Decided:** June 19, 2006
- **Citations:** 369 S.C. 201; 631 S.E.2d 262; 2006 S.C. LEXIS 219
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Moore
- **Judges:** Burnett, Toal, Waller, Moore, Pleicones
- **Cited by:** 314 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9586011

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating "an insubstantial error not affecting the result of the trial is harmless where 'guilt has been conclusively proven . . . such that no other rational conclusion can be reached.'" (quoting State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5 , 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989))
- holding flight evidence was not relevant where the evidence did not create an inference that defendant’s alleged failure to stop for a blue light was motivated by his belief that the police were seeking him for his pending murder charge
- holding the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, and an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's admissibility determination either lacks evidentiary support or i…
- holding the admissibility of evidence is within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, and noting an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling lacks evidentiary support or is controlled by an error of law
- stating "[t]he admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion," which "occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law"

## Opinion text

Justice MOORE:
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial judge erred in allowing Lambert’s testimony; however, in my opinion, this error cannot be harmless. Identity was a critical issue in this case. Petitioner’s failure to stop for a blue light in 1999 was irrelevant to his identity as the murderer. The fact that the trial judge specifically instructed the jury it could consider this evidence for identification purposes made the erroneous admission of this evidence even more prejudicial. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.
PLEICONES, J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9586011. Public record. Not legal advice.