State v. Ross

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.

Kwamaine Jarelle Ross, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001212

Appeal From Bamberg County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-100
Submitted March 1, 2021 – Filed March 31, 2021

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, and Senior
Assistant Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Kwamaine Jarelle Ross appeals his murder conviction and
sentence of thirty years' imprisonment, arguing the trial court should not have
allowed a State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) agent to testify about a prior
statement made by another witness for the State. Ross argues the statement was
inadmissible hearsay and the State failed to lay the necessary foundation to admit it
as a prior inconsistent statement. We hold the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting the prior statement and therefore affirm. See State v.
Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("The admission of
evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent
an abuse of discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions
of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of
law.").

First, the statement was not hearsay under the South Carolina Rules of Evidence.
See Rule 801(d), SCRE ("A statement is not hearsay if . . . [t]he declarant testifies
at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement,
and the statement is . . . inconsistent with the declarant's testimony . . . ."). Here,
the declarant testified at Ross's trial and the statement was inconsistent with prior
testimony. Second, to the extent Ross challenges on appeal the admission of the
statement as a prior inconsistent statement pursuant to Rule 613(b), SCRE, we note
this argument is unpreserved. At trial, Ross, though advised by the State that it
sought to have the statement admitted for impeachment purposes, never argued to
the trial court that the State failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 613(b);
therefore, we hold any objection to the foundation laid by the State for admission
of the statement was not preserved for appellate review. See State v. Dunbar, 356
S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("Issues not raised and ruled upon in
the trial court will not be considered on appeal.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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