State v. Gregory

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedJanuary 28, 2003
Docket2003-UP-080
StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Gregory (State v. Gregory) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Gregory, (S.C. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Wayne Drummond Gregory,        Appellant.


Appeal From Lexington County
H. Dean Hall, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-080 
Heard January 16, 2003 B Filed January 28, 2003


AFFIRMED


Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster; Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh; Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, of Columbia; and Donald V. Myers, of Lexington; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 99, 544 S.E.2d 30, 37 (2001) (stating Aa contemporaneous objection is required to preserve issues for direct appellate review@); State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222, 226, 284 S.E.2d 786, 789 (1981) (holding the failure to contemporaneously object to a matter advanced as prejudicial Acannot be later bootstrapped by a motion for a mistrial@); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 628 (1993) (A[T]he Constitution does not prohibit the use for impeachment purposes of a defendant=s silence prior to arrest, or after arrest if no Miranda warnings are given.@) (citations omitted); State v. Bell, 347 S.C. 267, 271, 554 S.E.2d 435, 437 (Ct. App. 2001) (finding no error or constitutional violation in the State=s cross-examination of the defendant regarding her post-arrest silence where there was no evidence that she had received any Miranda warnings).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and SHULER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brecht v. Abrahamson
507 U.S. 619 (Supreme Court, 1993)
State v. McHoney
544 S.E.2d 30 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2001)
State v. Lynn
284 S.E.2d 786 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1981)
State v. Bell
554 S.E.2d 435 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Gregory, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gregory-scctapp-2003.