State v. Emmons

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.

Christopher Lee Emmons, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002018

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-234
Submitted February 1, 2015 – Filed May 6, 2015

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant
Attorney General Mary Williams Leddon, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of
Spartanburg, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Christopher Lee Emmons appeals his conviction for attempted
armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in (1) admitting dog tracking evidence;
(2) admitting a witness's in-court identification of him; and (3) not dismissing his
indictment or suppressing all evidence related to the missing video surveillance
footage. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting the dog tracking evidence: State
v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 507, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) ("A ruling in limine
is not a final ruling on the admissibility of evidence. Unless an objection is made
at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling made, the issue is not
preserved for review." (internal citation omitted)).

2. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting the witness's in-court
identification: State v. Tisdale, 338 S.C. 607, 611, 527 S.E.2d 389, 391 (Ct. App.
2000) ("The admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial
court."); id. at 611, 527 S.E.2d at 392 ("An in-court identification of an accused is
inadmissible if a suggestive out-of-court identification procedure created a very
substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted)); id. at 612, 527 S.E.2d at 392 ("Although the reliability of an
identification may be affected by media identification, no police deterrence would
be achieved by excluding evidence where there has been no governmental
involvement."); Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716, 728 (2012) ("The
fallibility of eyewitness evidence does not, without the taint of improper state
conduct, warrant a due process rule requiring a trial court to screen such evidence
for reliability before allowing the jury to assess its creditworthiness.").

3. As to whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the indictment or not
suppressing all evidence related to the missing video surveillance footage: State v.
Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("In order for an issue to
be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by
the trial [court]."); State v. Parris, 387 S.C. 460, 465, 692 S.E.2d 207, 209 (Ct.
App. 2010) ("When the defendant receives the relief requested from the trial court,
there is no issue for the appellate court to decide.").
AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, LOCKEMY, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

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