State v. Vandross

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.

Charles Nemon
Vandross, Appellant.

Appeal from Greenwood County

 Wyatt T. Saunders, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-192

Submitted April 1, 2009 – Filed May 5,
2009   

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant
Attorney General Melody J. Brown, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jerry W. Peace,
of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Charles Nemon Vandross appeals his convictions for murder,
first-degree burglary, kidnapping, and possession of a weapon during the
commission of a violent crime.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities.

1.  As to whether the trial court erred by
preventing Vandross from introducing evidence of third party guilt: State v.
Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 121, 551 S.E.2d 240, 244 (2001) ("The
admission or exclusion of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial
judge, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of
discretion."); State v. Gregory, 198
S.C. 98, 104-05, 16 S.E.2d 532, 534-35 (1941) ("[E]vidence
which can have (no) other effect than to cast a bare suspicion upon another, or
to raise a conjectural inference as to the commission of the crime by another,
is not admissible . . . . [B]efore such testimony can be received, there must
be such proof of connection with it, such a train of facts or circumstances, as
tends clearly to point out such other person as the guilty party.  Remote acts, disconnected
and outside the crime itself, cannot be separately proved for such a purpose.").

2.  As
to whether the trial court erred in admitting photographs of the crime scene,
including photographs of a Bible in close proximity to the victim: Holy Loch
Distribs., Inc. v. Hitchcock, 340
S.C. 20, 24, 531 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2000) ("In order to preserve
an issue for appellate review, the issue must have been raised
to and ruled upon by the trial court."); State v.
Benton, 338 S.C. 151, 157, 526 S.E.2d 228, 231 (2000) (holding an appellant may not argue one ground for objection at trial and a different ground on appeal). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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