State v. Taylor

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State of South Carolina, Respondent,

v.

Alouis L. Taylor, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Charleston County
 Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-701
Submitted December 1, 2008 – Filed December 15, 2008   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:    Alouis L. Taylor appeals his conviction of possession of a firearm and sentence of one year imprisonment.  Taylor argues the trial court erred by allowing testimony indicating the gun found was loaded, maintaining the testimony was not relevant and unduly prejudicial.

1.  We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the officer to testify regarding the steps he took to secure the weapon, including the removal of the handgun’s magazine and chambered bullet.  See State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134, 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005) (holding the chain of custody requirement is strict where fungible evidence is involved); State v. Rice, 375 S.C. 302, 314, 652 S.E.2d 409, 415 (Ct. App. 2007) (“The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.”).  To the extent Taylor complains about the State’s closing argument, we find the issue is not preserved for review because Taylor did not object during the State’s closing.  See  In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 93, 551 S.E.2d 235, 238-239 (2001) (holding an issue arising from closing arguments is not preserved for review absent a contemporaneous objection).

AFFIRMED. [1]

ANDERSON, HUFF, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

---

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