State v. Reese

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.

Robin Reese, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-209826

Appeal From Richland County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-300
Heard May 13, 2014 – Filed July 30, 2014

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General W. Edgar Salter, III, and
Solicitor Daniel Edward Johnson, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Robin Reese appeals her convictions for murder and first-degree
lynching, arguing the trial court erred by (1) not excluding graphic autopsy
photographs under Rule 403, SCRE, and (2) refusing to charge involuntary
manslaughter. We affirm.

Reese contends the trial court erred in admitting eleven autopsy photos. She
argues the court should have excluded them under Rule 403, SCRE, because their
probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
See Rule 403, SCRE (stating relevant evidence "may be excluded if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice"). We find the
trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the photos. See State v. Gray,
Op. No. 5240 (S.C. Ct. App. filed June 11, 2014) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 23 at
62, 76) (holding in the appeal of Reese's co-defendant, the trial court did not err in
admitting the autopsy photos).

As for the trial court's refusal to charge involuntary manslaughter, we find Reese's
argument on this issue unpreserved. The trial court denied Reese's request for an
involuntary manslaughter charge after she argued "she [did] nothing that could
have led to the intentional death of the victim in this case." On appeal, however,
Reese asserts a much different argument—there is evidence from which the jury
could conclude that Reese, based on her co-defendant's actions "under the hand of
one is the hand of all theory," was engaged in an unlawful assault and battery not
naturally tending to cause death or great bodily harm. Because this argument was
not presented to nor ruled upon by the trial court, we do not address it. See State v.
McKnight, 352 S.C. 635, 646, 576 S.E.2d 168, 174 (2003) (finding argument
unpreserved when it "was not raised" to or "ruled on by the trial court"); State v.
Benton, 338 S.C. 151, 157, 526 S.E.2d 228, 231 (2000) (declining to address
appellant's argument regarding a requested jury charge when appellant argued a
different ground in support of the jury charge at trial).

Reese's convictions are AFFIRMED.

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