State v. Taylor

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 of South Carolina, Respondent,

v.

Alouis L.
Taylor, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

 Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-701

Submitted December 1, 2008 – Filed
December 15, 2008   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:   
Alouis L. Taylor appeals his conviction of possession of a firearm and sentence
of one year imprisonment.  Taylor argues the trial court erred by allowing
testimony indicating the gun found was loaded, maintaining the testimony was
not relevant and unduly prejudicial.

1.  We find
the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the officer to testify
regarding the steps he took to secure the weapon, including the removal of the
handgun’s magazine and chambered bullet.  See State v.
Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134, 620
S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005) (holding the chain of custody requirement is strict
where fungible evidence is involved); State v. Rice, 375 S.C. 302, 314,
652 S.E.2d 409, 415 (Ct. App. 2007) (“The admissibility of evidence is within
the sound discretion of the trial judge.”).  To the extent Taylor complains
about the State’s closing argument, we find the issue is not preserved for
review because Taylor did not object during the State’s closing.  See  In
re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 93, 551 S.E.2d 235, 238-239 (2001) (holding an
issue arising from closing arguments is not preserved for review absent a
contemporaneous objection).

AFFIRMED. [1]

ANDERSON,
HUFF, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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