Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-607 - State v. Randolph

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.

Linart Randolph, Appellant.


Appeal From Newberry County
 James W. Johnson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-607
Submitted November 1, 2004 – Filed December 6, 2004


AFFIRMED


Harry T. Heizer, Jr. and Joshua Kendrick, both  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 Derrick K. McFarland, all of Columbia; and Solicitor William Townes Jones, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Appellant, Linart Randolph was convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole.  On appeal, Randolph asserts reversible error in the admission of (1) evidence of his drug use on the night of the murder and, (2) the written statement of his co-defendant.  We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities:  ISSUE I:  State v. Myers, 344 S.C. 532, 535, 544 S.E.2d 851, 852-53 (Ct. App. 2001) (finding where defendant objected at trial on the ground that testimony was irrelevant, he could not argue on appeal that testimony improperly placed his character at issue); State v. Dickman, 341 S.C. 293, 295, 534 S.E.2d 268, 269 (2000) (holding a party cannot argue one ground below and then argue another ground on appeal); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) (stating to be preserved for appellate review, an issue must be raised to and ruled on by the trial judge; though a party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve an issue, it must be clear that the argument has been presented on that ground); State v. Haselden, 353 S.C. 190, 196, 577 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2003) (finding the erroneous admission of character evidence is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if its impact is minimal in the context of the entire record); State v. Cheeseboro, 346 S.C. 526, 550, 552 S.E.2d 300, 313 (2001) (holding where there is other properly admitted evidence of conduct demonstrating the particular character trait in question, there is no reversible error); State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 507, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) (finding any error in admission of evidence cumulative to other unobjected-to evidence is harmless); ISSUE II: State v. Hughey, 339 S.C. 439, 453, 529 S.E.2d 721, 728-29 (2000) (holding the trial judge has considerable discretion in ruling on the admissibility of testimonial and non-testimonial evidence and his determination of admissibility will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice to the complaining party); State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 507, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) (finding any error in admission of evidence cumulative to other unobjected-to evidence is harmless); State v. Taylor, 333 S.C. 159, 172, 508 S.E.2d 870, 876 (1998) (holding in order to reverse a case based on the erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence, prejudice must be shown).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.


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