State v. Ridel

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.

Eric John Ridel, Appellant.

Appeal From
Sumter County

George C.
James, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion
No. 2009-UP-434

Heard September
1, 2009 – Filed September 9, 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 Donald J.
Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor C. Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this criminal matter, Eric John Ridel appeals
his convictions and sentences for murder and failure to stop for a blue light
resulting in death.  On appeal, Ridel asserts the trial court committed reversible
error in: (1) admitting testimony that the victim had died and burned in the
car; (2) allowing the State to replay a dispatch audio tape; (3) admitting additional
photographs of the burned patrol car when nine photographs were already
admitted into evidence; and (4) admitting evidence related to the dismantling
of the burned patrol car. 

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the
following authorities:  Issue 1: State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134,
620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005) (holding an issue is not preserved when one ground
is raised to the trial court and another ground raised on appeal); State v.
Haselden, 353 S.C. 190, 197, 577 S.E.2d 445, 448-49 (2003) (finding
admission of improper evidence is harmless where the evidence is merely
cumulative); Issue 2: State v. Holder, 382 S.C. 278, 289, 676 S.E.2d
690, 696 (2009) (holding the erroneous admission of evidence is harmless where,
in view of the record as a whole, the impact of the evidence was minimal and
the evidence was cumulative to other evidence admitted without objection); State
v. Garner, 304 S.C. 220, 222, 403 S.E.2d 631, 632 (1991) (holding any error
in the admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence
of guilt); Issue 3: State v. Nichols, 325 S.C. 111, 121-22, 481 S.E.2d
118, 124 (1997) (upholding the admission of photographs on the ground they were
not unduly gruesome nor prejudicial considering the facts and the material
purpose for their introduction); State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 507,
435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) (holding any error in the admission of evidence that
is merely cumulative is harmless); Issue 4: State v. Pagan, 369 S.C.
201, 212, 631 S.E.2d 262, 267-68 (2006) (finding harmless error where
erroneously admitted testimony had minimal impact and other evidence
established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.