SCDOT v. Rose

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

South Carolina Department of
Transportation, Respondent,

v.

James Grayson Rose
And

Bank of America, NC, f/k/a Nations Bank NA,
Mortgagee, Other Condemnee,

Of whom James Grayson Rose is 
Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County

James R. Barber, III, Circuit
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.
2009-UP-219

Heard April 23, 2009 - Filed May
26, 2009

AFFIRMED

William P. Walker, of Lexington, and W. Ralph Garris, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Clifford O. Koon, Jr., Robert L. Brown, and Paul D. de
Holczer, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:  In this condemnation action, James Grayson Rose appeals the denial
of a motion for a new trial, arguing the South Carolina Department of
Transportation's closing argument was improper and prejudicial because it
appealed to the jury's emotions by insinuating the jury, being comprised of taxpayers,
would be paying for the verdict.  Rose also contends the trial court abused its
discretion in admitting testimony of possible alterations to the original
condemnation plan and abused its discretion in refusing to allow Rose to
introduce a computer animation of the subject property and highway expansion
project.   We affirm the trial court's denial of a new trial pursuant to Rule
220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to
whether the Department's closing argument was improper, given counsel did not
request a clarification of the trial court's ruling, "Let's move forward:" I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716,
724 (2000) (providing the losing party must raise the issue to the trial court and
obtain a ruling on that issue for it to be preserved for appellate review); Brown
v. Stewart, 348 S.C. 33, 52, 557 S.E.2d 676, 686 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding
appellant failed to preserve the issue of an improper closing argument, where,
after the court sustained appellant's objection, appellant did not request a
curative instruction or move to strike).

2.  As to
whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting testimony of
alterations to the condemnation plan: Hanahan v. Simpson, 326 S.C. 140,
155, 485 S.E.2d 903, 911 (1997) (providing where the appellate argument differs
from the argument for the trial objection, the issue is not preserved); Brown,
348 S.C. at 52, 557 S.E.2d at 686 (stating after an appellant's objection is
sustained, to preserve the issue for review, the appellant must request a
curative instruction or move to strike).

3.  As to
whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to permit the
introduction of a computer animation: Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369,
387, 529 S.E.2d 528, 538 (2000) (holding the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in excluding a computer animation where it was not an accurate
representation of the evidence).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN,
C.J., PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.