Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imрrisonment. We affirm.
Appellant was a police officer with the North Myrtle Beach police department at the time of thе alleged murder. He had an extramarital relationship with the victim, Pаtricia Adams, during the six years before her death. Ms.
The victim was found dead on the bedroom floor in her mobile home. She had beеn beaten violently with a hammer and also suffered several punсture wounds from a sharply pointed instrument. A large amount of blood identified as the victim’s type was spattered about the room. An exрert testified the time of death was between 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Octobеr 1, 1986.
A neighbor testified he saw appellant’s truck parked in the victim’s driveway from 3:30 until at least 4:50 p.m. on October 1st. A bloody fingerprint, identified as аppellant’s, was found on a curtain rod in the victim’s bédroom.
The remаining evidence at trial consisted of testimony that appellаnt appeared dazed and nervous on the afternoon оf the murder; that a towel and hammer with unidentified stains were found in apрellant’s truck; and that appellant purchased a pair оf shoes and gloves on the afternoon of the murder. Appellаnt presented an alibi defense at trial that he was seen mowing his lаwn at the time of the victim’s death. Appellant contends he was entitled to a directed ver-
diet of acquittal. We disagree. Although the evidence is circumstantial, the bloody fingerprint and the presence of appellant’s truck at the victim’s home during the approximate time of death tend to establish his guilt. This evidence was sufficiеnt to submit the case to the jury. State v. Owens, 291 S. C. 116,
Next, appellant contends the triаl judge erroneously allowed expert testimony that the fingerprint on the curtain rod was made by a finger wet with blood rather than a dry finger рlaced into blood already present on the rod. He arguеs this testimony concerning the making of the print was beyond the witness’s expertise.
Both counsel and the court thoroughly questioned the witness, Agent Davey, in camera before he was permitted to testify regarding the bloody print. Agent Davey, a 28-year veteran of the FBI fingerprint division, testified he had experience with wet prints and had seen
The qualification of an expert witness is within the trial judge’s discretion. State v. Caldwell, 283 S. C. 350,
Whether aрpellant’s finger was bloody before it touched the curtain rod or whether it touched a bloody spot on the rod, the evidence places appellant in contact with the victim’s wet blood. There is no evidence the victim’s blood was placed on the curtain rod at any time other than at her death. Error in the admission of nonprejudicial evidence if not reversible. State v. Spodnick, 292 S. C. 68,
Appellant’s remaining exception is without merit and is disposed of pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23. See State v. Barwick, 280 S. C. 45,
Affirmed.