Samuel Whatley, II v. Charleston County Board of Elections
24-1596
4th Cir.
Nov 21, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Garry Smith was indicted for domestic violence against his pregnant fiancée, B.B., for an incident occurring on March 21, 2020 [lines="58-59"].
  2. Smith pleaded not guilty and filed a motion to exclude B.B.'s statements recorded by police on body-camera video, arguing it violated his right to confrontation [lines="67-70"].
  3. During the bench trial, B.B. failed to appear, and the State proceeded to present evidence through officers who responded to the incident [lines="82-85"].
  4. Officer Soucek’s body-camera recorded B.B.’s statements made during a medical emergency as she was receiving care from EMTs [lines="112-114"].
  5. The trial court allowed the admission of B.B.'s statements captured on video, ruling that they were nontestimonial and relevant as excited utterances [lines="283-284"].

Issues

  1. Whether the admission of B.B.’s statements made to Officer Soucek violated Smith’s right to confrontation because the statements were testimonial [lines="40-41"].
  2. Whether B.B.’s statements to EMTs were nontestimonial and admissible under the Confrontation Clause [lines="622-623"].

Holdings

  1. The court held that B.B.’s statements to Officer Soucek were testimonial and their admission at trial violated Smith’s right to confrontation [lines="619-620"].
  2. The court found that B.B.’s statements to EMTs were nontestimonial, made for the purpose of receiving medical care, and their admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause [lines="636-637"].

OPINION

*1 Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel T. Whatley, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1596 Doc: 5 Filed: 11/21/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel T. Whatley, II, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Whatley’s civil complaint for lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [*] We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Whatley v. Charleston Cnty. Bd. of Elections , No. 2:23-cv-00833-RMG (D.S.C. June 13, 2024). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

[*] The district court’s order is a final, appealable order because the court did not grant Whatley leave to amend his complaint. Britt v. DeJoy , 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order). 2