State v. Archie

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.

Leroy Archie, Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County

Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-572

Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October
14, 2008

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, of Columbia; Solicitor Christina T. Adams, of
Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Leroy
Archie was indicted for and convicted of murder and possession of a weapon
during the commission of a violent crime.  Archie appeals, arguing the trial
court erred in allowing a forensic pathologist to testify to the distance a
person could travel after suffering a lacerated aorta.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the
following authorities:  State v. Rice, 375 S.C. 302, 323, 652 S.E.2d 409, 419 (Ct. App.
2007) (“A general objection which does not specify the particular ground on
which the objection is based is insufficient to preserve a question for review.”);  Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71,
76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (“It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by
the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.”);  State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58-59, 609 S.E.2d 520, 523
(2005) (holding to preserve an issue for review there must be a contemporaneous
objection that is ruled upon by the trial court with the objection addressed to
the trial court in a sufficiently specific manner that brings attention to the
exact error, and if a party fails to properly object, he is procedurally barred
from raising the issue on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN,
C.J., HUFF, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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