In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Michael Hargrove

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

In the Matter
of the Care and Treatment of Michael Hargrove, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

 J. Michelle Childs, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-201

Submitted April 1, 2009 – Filed May 18,
2009  

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael Hargrove appeals his commitment to
the South Carolina Department of Mental Health (the Department) as a sexually
violent predator. On appeal, Hargrove contends the arrest warrant and affidavit
associated with a previous guilty plea to assault and battery with intent to
kill were improperly admitted into evidence because the two documents
constituted inadmissible hearsay.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit court erred in admitting the arrest
warrant and affidavit into evidence: Rule 703, SCRE, Rule 801(c), SCRE, Rule
803, SCRE; State v. Harris, 318 S.C. 178, 181, 456 S.E.2d 433, 435 (Ct.
App. 1995) (stating the qualification of an expert witness and the admissibility of an expert’s testimony are matters
within the circuit court’s sound discretion); Jones v. Doe, 372 S.C. 53,
63, 640 S.E.2d 514, 519 (Ct. App. 2006) (“[T]he expert may testify to
evidence even though it is inadmissible under the hearsay rule, but allowing
the evidence to be received for this purpose does not mean it is admitted for
its truth. It is received only for the limited purpose of informing the jury of
the basis of the expert’s opinion and therefore does not constitute a true
hearsay exception."); Halbersberg v. Berry, 302 S.C. 97, 103, 394 S.E.2d
7, 11 (Ct. App. 1990) (explaining an expert witness may state an opinion
based on facts not within her firsthand knowledge).

2.  As to whether the
admission of the arrest warrant and affidavit violated his right to confront
witnesses: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733
(1998) (“It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be
preserved for appellate review.").

AFFIRMED.

HEARN,
C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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