Court Opinion

ID: 9600764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:31:10.642666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:20.293227
License: Public Domain

Justice PLEICONES,
concurring:
I agree that the evidence of appellant’s communications with LilAshleyPA were admissible under Rule 404(b), SCRE. Having concluded the Pennsylvania evidence was admissible under 404(b), the next issue is whether the prejudicial impact of this evidence outweighs its probative value. Rule 403, SCRE. While this is a close question, appellant cannot demonstrate reversible error. Even if the LilAshleyPA evidence were not admissible in the State’s case-in-chief, once appellant interposed the defense of entrapment his earlier efforts to *34entice a young girl to come to South Carolina would have been admissible to prove appellant’s prior disposition to commit the offense. Accordingly, I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm appellant’s convictions.