State v. Dockery

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.

Tina Dockery, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-183266

Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-186
Submitted February 1, 2014 – Filed May 7, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Dayne C. Phillips, of Columbia; and
Appellate Defender Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tina Dockery appeals her conviction of unlawful conduct
towards a child, arguing the trial court erred in admitting testimony of her
demeanor. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Floyd, 295 S.C. 518, 520, 369 S.E.2d 842, 843 (1988) ("The
purpose of a motion in limine is to prevent disclosure of potentially prejudicial
matter to the jury."); id. ("A ruling on [a motion in limine] is not the ultimate
disposition on the admissibility of evidence [but] remains subject to change based
upon developments during trial."); State v. Atieh, 397 S.C. 641, 647, 725 S.E.2d
730, 733 (Ct. App. 2012) (holding any objection to three witnesses' testimonies
after counsel's motion in limine was not preserved because counsel did not renew
his objection when the testimony was offered; however, counsel renewed his
objection to the fourth witness's testimony and, therefore, the objection was
preserved as to the fourth witness); State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541
S.E.2d 837, 840 (2001) ("[W]here a [court] makes a ruling on the admission of
evidence on the record immediately prior to the introduction of the evidence in
question, the aggrieved party does not need to renew the objection[; t]he issue is
preserved."); State v. Tufts, 355 S.C. 493, 497, 585 S.E.2d 523, 525 (Ct. App.
2003) (holding an objection to witness testimony was preserved when the trial
court ruled on the issue after in camera testimony, the court adjourned, and the
next day the State immediately called the witness as to which the objection was
made); State v. Kirton, 381 S.C. 7, 37, 671 S.E.2d 107, 122 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The
admission of improper evidence is harmless where the evidence is merely
cumulative to other evidence."); State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 507, 435 S.E.2d
859, 862 (1993) (holding even if the defendant had successfully renewed his
objection to the witness's testimony after his motion in limine, any error would
have been harmless because two other witnesses testified to the same fact without
objection).

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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