State v. Mack

Opinion

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.

Ricky Hewins Mack, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-213390

Appeal From Spartanburg County J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-251 Submitted April 1, 2014 – Filed June 25, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Julie Kate Keeney, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Smith, 337 S.C. 27, 32, 522 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1999) ("A pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence is preliminary and is subject to change based on developments at trial. A ruling in limine is not final; unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling procured, the issue is not preserved for review." (citation omitted)); State v. Dicapua, 373 S.C. 452, 455-56, 646 S.E.2d 150, 152 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding the defendant's failure to object to a videotape coming into evidence "amounted to a waiver of any issue" the defendant had with the videotape and reasoning the defendant's "express waiver of objection to the admission of the evidence . . . was tantamount to a withdrawal of his previous motion to suppress" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and SHORT and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.