State v. Toney

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.

Jameco Abdul Toney, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002534

Appeal From Darlington County
R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-428
Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed October 19, 2016

AFFIRMED

Jeffrey Scott Stephens, of Quindlen & Merrifield, P.A.,
of Beaufort; and Chief Appellate Defender Robert
Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor William Benjamin Rogers, Jr.,
of Bennettsville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 511, 702 S.E.2d 395, 400 (Ct. App.
2010) ("[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) (quoting State
v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541 S.E.2d 837, 840 (2001)); State v. Atieh, 397
S.C. 641, 646, 725 S.E.2d 730, 733 (Ct. App. 2012) ("A ruling in limine is not
final; unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final
ruling procured, the issue is not preserved for review."); id. at 646-47, 725 S.E.2d
at 733 (providing exceptions to the rule that a contemporaneous objection be made
at the time evidence is offered to preserve the matter (1) when the motion in limine
is made immediately prior to the introduction of the evidence in question and (2)
when the trial court clearly indicates its ruling is final); McHam v. State, 404 S.C.
465, 470, 473-75, 746 S.E.2d 41, 44, 46-47 (2013) (holding in a post-conviction
relief action following dismissal of an Anders appeal from trial in which trial
counsel moved in an in limine motion to suppress drugs as the product of an illegal
search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but failed to renew the
objection on that basis when the drugs were actually admitted into evidence at
trial, it was clear the Court of Appeals did not consider the merits of the Fourth
Amendment issue on direct appeal because it was not preserved by trial counsel);
State v. Dicapua, 373 S.C. 452, 455, 646 S.E.2d 150, 152 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding
trial counsel's statement to the trial court that he had "no objection" to the
introduction of evidence, even though he previously made a motion to exclude the
evidence, waived any issue with admission of that evidence).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, SHORT, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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