State v. Cauthen

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.

David R.
Cauthen Jr., Appellant.

Appeal From Lancaster County

John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-233 

Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed April 18,
2012

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Assistant
Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney
General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Douglas Barfield, of Chester, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: David R. Cauthen Jr. appeals his
conviction of murder, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the State to
introduce evidence Cauthen asked investigating officers if he could plead
guilty to involuntary manslaughter.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Wannamaker, 346 S.C. 495, 499, 552 S.E.2d 284, 286 (2001) (holding a ruling in
limine is not final and that unless an objection is made at the time the
evidence is offered and a final ruling procured, the issue is not preserved for
review); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003)
("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on
appeal.").[2] 

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and
GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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

[2] Even if
Cauthen's issue on appeal were preserved for appellate review, we would
affirm.  See State v. Evins, 373 S.C. 404, 421, 645 S.E.2d 904,
912 (2007) (finding that the relevance, materiality, and admissibility of
evidence are matters within the sole discretion of the trial court, and the
trial court's findings on such issues will not be reversed on appeal absent an
abuse of discretion).