State v. Mack

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.

Ricky Hewins Mack, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-213390

Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-251
Submitted April 1, 2014 – Filed June 25, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Julie Kate Keeney, both of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Smith, 337 S.C. 27, 32, 522 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1999) ("A
pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence is preliminary and is subject to
change based on developments at trial. 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." (citation omitted)); State v. Dicapua, 373
S.C. 452, 455-56, 646 S.E.2d 150, 152 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding the defendant's
failure to object to a videotape coming into evidence "amounted to a waiver of any
issue" the defendant had with the videotape and reasoning the defendant's "express
waiver of objection to the admission of the evidence . . . was tantamount to a
withdrawal of his previous motion to suppress" (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and SHORT and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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