State v. Wilds

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Wilds

DecidedFebruary 20, 2003

Docket2003-UP-152

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Wilds (State v. Wilds) 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. Wilds, (S.C. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Israel Wilds, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
Marc H. Westbrook, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 03-UP-152
Submitted January 13, 2003 Filed February 20, 2003

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, 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; Warren Blair Giese, of Columbia; for respondent.

PER CURIAM: Israel Wilds appeals his convictions for murder and armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination of two of the State=s witnesses.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Sims, 348 S.C. 16, 26 n.2, 558 S.E.2d 518, 524 n.2 (2002) (AOn appeal, appellant also argues the trial court=s ruling violated the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution; however, this issue is not preserved for review because it was not raised at trial.@); State v. Prioleau, 345 S.C. 404, 411, 548 S.E.2d 213, 216 (2001) (AIn order to preserve for review an alleged error in admitting evidence an objection should be sufficiently specific to bring into focus the precise nature of the alleged error so it can be reasonably understood by the trial judge.@); State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 393, 440 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1994) (AThe issue which is not properly preserved cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.@).

AFFIRMED.

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

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

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Israel Wilds, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
Marc H. Westbrook, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 03-UP-152
Submitted January 13, 2003 Filed February 20, 2003

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, 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; Warren Blair Giese, of Columbia; for respondent.

PER CURIAM: Israel Wilds appeals his convictions for murder and armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination of two of the State=s witnesses.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Sims, 348 S.C. 16, 26 n.2, 558 S.E.2d 518, 524 n.2 (2002) (AOn appeal, appellant also argues the trial court=s ruling violated the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution; however, this issue is not preserved for review because it was not raised at trial.@); State v. Prioleau, 345 S.C. 404, 411, 548 S.E.2d 213, 216 (2001) (AIn order to preserve for review an alleged error in admitting evidence an objection should be sufficiently specific to bring into focus the precise nature of the alleged error so it can be reasonably understood by the trial judge.@); State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 393, 440 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1994) (AThe issue which is not properly preserved cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.@).

AFFIRMED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Wilds, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wilds-scctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack