State v. Dale Eugene King

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.

Dale Eugene King, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-002078

Appeal From Beaufort County
Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-091
Submitted February 1, 2023 – Filed March 15, 2023

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Adam Sinclair Ruffin, of North
Charleston, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory, Deputy Attorney
General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant
Attorney General Julianna E. Battenfield, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of
Bluffton, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Dale Eugene King appeals his conviction for murder and
sentence of thirty-five years' imprisonment. On appeal King argues the trial court
erred in (1) failing to grant a mistrial after the trial court instructed the jury that a
trial is a "search for the truth" in its opening remarks; (2) failing to grant a mistrial
after Decedent's sister testified of a prior episode of domestic violence allegedly
committed by King against Decedent; and (3) admitting the testimony of King's
daughter and the arresting officer of a physical assault King allegedly committed
against Decedent two months prior to Decedent's death. We affirm.

1. We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a mistrial
after it instructed the jury that a trial is a "search for the truth." See State v. Harris,
382 S.C. 107, 117, 674 S.E.2d 532, 537 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The trial court's decision
will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an
error of law."). The trial court's "search for the truth" remarks came at the
beginning of trial; the trial court did not give the jury any charges on the law or
reasonable doubt at the time the remarks were made; the trial court, the State, and
King devoted time in each of their opening remarks to explain the State's burden of
proof and reasonable doubt; and the trial court properly instructed the jury on the
law during its instructions immediately before deliberations. See State v. Beaty,
423 S.C. 26, 34, 813 S.E.2d 502, 506 (2018) (holding the trial court's search for the
truth comment during its opening remarks not to be reversible error where it was a
"mere statement to the jury and not a charge on the law. . . . [and] the remarks were
not linked to either the reasonable doubt or circumstantial evidence charges");
State v. Patterson, 425 S.C. 500, 512, 823 S.E.2d 217, 224 (Ct. App. 2019)
(holding the trial court's search for the truth remark was not reversible error
because the "comments came at the beginning of trial rather than the charge on the
State's burden of proof at the end"); id. at 512, 823 S.E.2d at 224
("Furthermore, . . . we note the trial court gave an accurate definition of reasonable
doubt later during its opening statement and again in the jury charge.").
Additionally, King's guilt was conclusively proven by King's own statements and
the autopsy report presented by the State. See State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5, 377
S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) ("When guilt has been conclusively proven by competent
evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached, the Court should
not set aside a conviction because of insubstantial errors not affecting the result.").

2. We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a mistrial
after Decedent's sister testified King had committed a previous incident of
domestic abuse. See Harris, 382 S.C. at 117, 674 S.E.2d at 537 ("The trial court's
decision will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting
to an error of law."). Following the sister's statement and King's objection, the trial
court immediately instructed the jury to disregard the statement. See State v.
Smith, 290 S.C. 393, 395, 350 S.E.2d 923, 924 (1986) ("The jury should be
specifically instructed to disregard [incompetent] evidence, and not to consider it
for any purpose during deliberations."); State v. Young, 420 S.C. 608, 623, 803
S.E.2d 888, 896 (Ct. App. 2017) ("We start by presuming the cure worked, for we
also presume juries follow their instructions."); id. at 624, 803 S.E.2d at 896
("Limiting instructions are deemed to cure error unless 'it is probable that,
notwithstanding the instruction, the accused was prejudiced.'" (quoting Smith, 290
S.C. at 395, 350 S.E.2d at 924)). Additionally, King's own statements and the
autopsy report presented by the State conclusively proved King's guilt. See Bailey,
298 S.C. at 5, 377 S.E.2d at 584 ("When guilt has been conclusively proven by
competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached, the
Court should not set aside a conviction because of insubstantial errors not affecting
the result.").

3. We hold King's argument that the trial court erred by admitting testimony about
alleged prior difficulties between Decedent and King is not preserved for appeal
because King failed to contemporaneously renew his objection to the testimony at
trial. See State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58, 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005) ("To
preserve an issue for review there must be a contemporaneous objection that is
ruled upon by the trial court."); State v. Smith, 337 S.C. 27, 32, 522 S.E.2d 598,
600 (1999) ("A pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence is preliminary and is
subject to change based on developments at trial."); State v. Mueller, 319 S.C. 266,
268, 460 S.E.2d 409, 410 (Ct. App. 1995) ("Because the evidence developed
during trial may warrant a change in the ruling, the losing party must renew his
objection at trial when the evidence is presented in order to preserve the issue for
appeal.").

AFFIRMED. 1
WILLIAMS, C.J., GEATHERS, J., and HILL, A.J., concur.

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