State v. Brown

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.

Brandon Leandre Brown,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Florence County

J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-358

Submitted March 19, 2004 – Filed June
4, 2004  

AFFIRMED

Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile of SC Office
of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for  Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor E.L. Clements, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Brandon Leandre Brown appeals
from his conviction and sentences for first-degree criminal sexual conduct with
a minor and for transmitting a sexual disease. 1 

1.       We find no error in the trial court’s
refusal to direct a verdict of acquittal on the indictment charging Brown with
transmitting a sexual disease.  When reviewing the denial of a directed verdict
motion, the court of appeals must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences
in the light most favorable to the State.  State v. Morgan, 352 S.C.
359, 574 S.E.2d 203 (Ct. App. 2002).  If there is any direct evidence or any
substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of
the accused, an appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to
the jury.  State v. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 522 S.E.2d 845 (Ct. App.
1999).  The evidence supported the finding that the victim in this case contracted
gonorrhea from Brown.

2.       We need not address the issue of whether
the trial court erred in admitting Brown’s second statement in evidence because
the police did not repeat the Miranda warnings to Brown prior to his
giving the statement.  The issue is not preserved for appellate review because
Brown never specifically raised the issue to the trial court and never received
an explicit ruling upon it.2  See State v. Nichols, 325 S.C. 111,
120, 481 S.E.2d 118, 123 (1997) (“[An] exception is not preserved for review
because appellant simply made a general objection during the experts’ testimony
without giving the specific ground.  An issue may not be raised for the first
time on appeal, but must have been raised to the trial judge to be preserved
for appellate review.”); see also Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C.
56, 403 S.E.2d 122 (1991) (holding that where the circuit court did not explicitly
rule on an argument the issue was not properly before the court of appeals and
should not have been addressed by it).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rules 215
and 220(b)(2), SCACR.

2   Although we do not address the
issue of whether the interrogating officer should have repeated to Brown the
Miranda warnings given him three hours and thirty-nine minutes before
he gave the second statement, other courts have held that repeated warnings
are not necessary to a finding that a defendant knowingly and intelligently
waived them in similar instances.  See United States v. Frankson,
83 F.3d 79 (4th Cir. 1996) (two and one-half hours); Jarrell v. Balkcom,
735 F.2d 1242 (11th Cir. 1984) (three hours); Commonwealth v. Silanskas,
746 N.E.2d 445 (Mass. 2001) (two hours); Bush v. State, 461 So. 2d
936 (Fla. 1984) (eleven hours); Fagan v. State, 412 So. 2d 1282 (Ala.
Crim. App. 1982) (three and one-half hours).  We also note that here the officer
reminded Brown of his rights before obtaining a second statement from him
and Brown appeared to have an understanding of his rights at that time.  See
State v. Smith, 259 S.C. 496, 192 S.E.2d 870 (1972) (wherein the supreme
court held the question of whether Miranda warnings should be repeated
at a later stage of interrogation after having been once given must be determined
on the basis of the facts and circumstances surrounding each case).