State v. Lloyd

THIS
OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Lewis Lloyd, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

James W. Johnson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-060

Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January
22, 2009   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lanelle C. Durant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, Solicitor Warren B. Giese,
all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:  Lewis Lloyd appeals his convictions and sentences for second-degree
arson and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, arguing the
trial judge erred: (1) in admitting Lloyd’s custodial statement to a police
officer, and (2) in refusing to admit evidence of a victim’s prior
convictions.  We affirm[1] 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) (stating to properly preserve an evidentiary issue for
review, the moving party must also make a contemporaneous objection when the
evidence is introduced unless the judge rules on the issue immediately prior to
the introduction of the evidence); State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 420, 535
S.E.2d 431, 436 (2000) (“[W]hether a specific instance of conduct by the
[victim] is closely connected in point of time or occasion to the [incident] so
as to be admissible is in the judge’s discretion and will not be disturbed on
appeal absent an abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice to the accused.”); State
v. Brown, 321 S.C. 184, 187, 467 S.E.2d 922, 924 (1996) (holding no abuse
of discretion occurred where the trial judge refused to admit the victim’s
twenty-three-year-old manslaughter conviction “[b]ased on the remoteness” in
time to the incident). 

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., SHORT and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. 

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