State v. Temple

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Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-061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.