State v. Ross

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Ross

DecidedJune 1, 2016

Docket2016-UP-231

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Ross (State v. Ross) 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. Ross, (S.C. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

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.

Dominique M. Ross, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000958

Appeal From Richland County Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-231 Submitted April 1, 2016 – Filed June 1, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, and Solicitor Daniel Edward Johnson, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Dominique M. Ross appeals her convictions of first-degree burglary and armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in admitting evidence of her flight as guilt and allowing the State to argue flight as evidence of guilt. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220 and the following authorities:

1. We hold the trial court did not err in permitting references to Ross's flight as evidence of guilt in the opening statements. See State v. Kornahrens, 290 S.C. 281, 284, 350 S.E.2d 180, 183 (1986) ("The solicitor is permitted in opening statement to outline the facts the [S]tate intends to prove. As long as the State introduces evidence to reasonably support the stated facts, there is no error." (internal citation omitted)).

2. Because Ross failed to object to the admission of the flight evidence at trial or during the State's closing argument, we hold her remaining arguments are unpreserved. See State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 507, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) ("A ruling in limine is not a final ruling on the admissibility of evidence. Unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling made, the issue is not preserved for review." (internal citation omitted)); State v. Wiggins, 330 S.C. 538, 550, 500 S.E.2d 489, 496 (1998) (providing a defendant's failure to object to the State's comments during closing arguments precludes appellate review of the issue).

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT and THOMAS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

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

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

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.

Dominique M. Ross, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000958

Appeal From Richland County Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-231 Submitted April 1, 2016 – Filed June 1, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, and Solicitor Daniel Edward Johnson, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Dominique M. Ross appeals her convictions of first-degree burglary and armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in admitting evidence of her flight as guilt and allowing the State to argue flight as evidence of guilt. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220 and the following authorities:

1. We hold the trial court did not err in permitting references to Ross's flight as evidence of guilt in the opening statements. See State v. Kornahrens, 290 S.C. 281, 284, 350 S.E.2d 180, 183 (1986) ("The solicitor is permitted in opening statement to outline the facts the [S]tate intends to prove. As long as the State introduces evidence to reasonably support the stated facts, there is no error." (internal citation omitted)).

2. Because Ross failed to object to the admission of the flight evidence at trial or during the State's closing argument, we hold her remaining arguments are unpreserved. See State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 507, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) ("A ruling in limine is not a final ruling on the admissibility of evidence. Unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling made, the issue is not preserved for review." (internal citation omitted)); State v. Wiggins, 330 S.C. 538, 550, 500 S.E.2d 489, 496 (1998) (providing a defendant's failure to object to the State's comments during closing arguments precludes appellate review of the issue).

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT and THOMAS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Ross, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ross-scctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack