State v. Jefferson

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Norwood, Allen Jefferson       
Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County

J. C. Buddy Nicholson, Jr., Circuit
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-014

Submitted January 12, 2004 – Filed January
15, 2004

AFFIRMED

Jeffrey Falkner Wilkes, and Richard Harold Warder, both of
Greenville, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka,
Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, and Solicitor Druanne Dykes White,
of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Norwood appeals from his convictions
for murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime,
arguing the State’s reference to a prior bad act in a portion of its questioning
and closing argument was improper.

FACTS         

During Norwood’s trial for murder and possession
of a firearm in connection with the May 27, 2001 murder of Carl Anthony Armstrong,
the State informed the court it had knowledge of a prior incident involving
Norwood and the victim in which Norwood attempted to shoot the victim.  In response,
the court instructed the State it could attack Norwood’s character on rebuttal
if the defense brought in the character issue.  The defense did not introduce
the character issue; however, the State referred to the prior incident during
its cross-examination of Norwood and his wife, as well as during its closing
argument.  Although Norwood now argues the State’s reference to the prior incident
was improper under Rule 404(a), SCRE (stating “evidence of a person’s character
or trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in
conformity therewith on a particular occasion”), Norwood’s counsel never objected
to this line of questioning at trial, nor did counsel object to the closing
argument statements referencing the prior bad act.  Norwood raises this issue
for the first time on appeal.

LAW/ANALYSIS

We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:

As to the failure to object to the prior
bad act evidence: see State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 69, 406
S.E.2d 315, 328 (1991) (holding a contemporaneous objection is required at trial
to preserve an error for appellate review); State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C.
386, 393, 440 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1994) (noting an issue which is not properly
preserved cannot be raised for the first time on appeal); Wilder Corp. v.
Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (stating 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. Black,
319 S.C. 515, 522-23, 462 S.E.2d 311, 315 (Ct. App. 1995) (determining a failure
to object when the evidence is offered constitutes a waiver of the right to
object).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY and ANDERSON, JJ., and CURETON, A.J.,
concur.