STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In the Supreme Court
__________
Appeal from Richland County
Honorable James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court Judge
__________
State v. White, 372 S.C. 364, 642 S.E.2d 607 (Ct.App. 2007)
____________
THE STATE, Respondent,
vs.
GARY A. WHITE, Petitioner.
__________
BRIEF OF RESPONDENT
__________
HENRY DARGAN McMASTER JOHN W. McINTOSH SALLEY W. ELLIOTT HAROLD M. COOMBS, JR. Post Office Box 11549 WARREN B. GIESE Post Office Box 192 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT |
INDEX
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.............................................................................................................................. ii
ISSUES PRESENTED..................................................................................................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.......................................................................................................................... 2
ARGUMENT
| I. | The trial court recognized that the officer’s tracking dog testimony was based upon specialized training, experience, and observation of the working scent dog. The testimony about the dog’s scenting and seeing the defendant was not about the methods and procedures of science............................................................................................................................................. 3 |
| II. | Witness Morris’ recantation was soundly excluded from the appellate record, and the defendant’s claim that the recantation entitles him to a new trial wants substance................. 8 |
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................................... 9
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases: