State v. Warren

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.

Ray Charles Warren, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002251

Appeal From Greenville County
Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-349
Submitted March 1, 2015 – Filed July 15, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Christina Catoe Bigelow, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of
Greenville, 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. The moving party, therefore, must make a contemporaneous
objection when the evidence is introduced." (alteration in original) (internal
quotation marks omitted)); State v. Dicapua, 373 S.C. 452, 455, 646 S.E.2d 150,
152 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding 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); State v. Norris, 253
S.C. 31, 40, 168 S.E.2d 564, 568 (1969) (holding an objection "came too late
because it was made after the objectionable evidence had been admitted").

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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