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.
Antonio Moultrie, Appellant.
Appeal From Charleston County
G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No.� 2011-UP-543�
Submitted November 1, 2011 � Filed
December 5, 2011
AFFIRMED
Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Alphonso Simon, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Antonio Moultrie appeals his conviction for murder, arguing the circuit court erred in admitting portions of a recording of a 911 call made by the victim just after being stabbed.� We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004) (finding the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"); Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822 (2006) ("Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency."); Rule 803, SCRE ("The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule . . . (1) Present Sense Impression.� A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter; (2) Excited Utterance.� A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.").� ��
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.�