State v. Temple

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Temple

DecidedFebruary 4, 2015

Docket2015-UP-061

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Temple (State v. Temple) 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. Temple, (S.C. Ct. App. 2015).

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.

Dan Lavert Temple, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000663

Appeal From Oconee County Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-061 Submitted December 1, 2014 – Filed February 4, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, and Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Christina Theos Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541 S.E.2d 837, 840 (2001) ("In most cases, [m]aking a motion in limine to exclude evidence at the beginning of trial does not preserve an issue for review because a motion in limine is not a final determination." (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Dicapua, 373 S.C. 452, 455, 646 S.E.2d 150, 152 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding that when a party affirmatively states it has no objection to evidence being admitted at trial, it has waived any previous objections made in a pretrial motion), aff'd, 383 S.C. 394, 680 S.E.2d 292 (2009).

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and McDONALD, JJ., 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.

Dan Lavert Temple, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000663

Appeal From Oconee County Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-061 Submitted December 1, 2014 – Filed February 4, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, and Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Christina Theos Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541 S.E.2d 837, 840 (2001) ("In most cases, [m]aking a motion in limine to exclude evidence at the beginning of trial does not preserve an issue for review because a motion in limine is not a final determination." (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Dicapua, 373 S.C. 452, 455, 646 S.E.2d 150, 152 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding that when a party affirmatively states it has no objection to evidence being admitted at trial, it has waived any previous objections made in a pretrial motion), aff'd, 383 S.C. 394, 680 S.E.2d 292 (2009).

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Temple, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-temple-scctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack