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.
William Andrew Lee, Appellant.
Appeal From Spartanburg County
Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-369�
Submitted May 1, 2011 � Filed July 14,
2011
AFFIRMED
Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Brendan J. McDonald, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Barry Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: William Andrew Lee was tried and convicted for the murder and attempted armed robbery of Harvey Wells at a car wash in Spartanburg County in 2008.� Lee contends the trial court committed reversible error by allowing a police officer to testify that Wells told him "two people" were involved in the shooting and attempted robbery because this evidence was inadmissible hearsay, not a dying declaration.� We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Crocker, 366 S.C. 394, 408, 621 S.E.2d 890, 897 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and [,] absent clear abuse, will not be disturbed on appeal."); Rule 804(b)(2), SCRE (stating an exception to the hearsay rule exists "[i]n a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding," when the declarant's statement was made "while believing that the declarant's death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death."); State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 93, 544 S.E.2d 30, 33 (2001)� ("A declarant does not have to express, in direct terms, his awareness of his condition for his statement to be admissible as a dying declaration. The necessary state of mind can be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding the declaration.").�
AFFIRMED.�
SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. �