Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-100 - State v. Rice

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.

Kendrick Rice, Appellant.


Appeal From Georgetown County
 Paula H. Thomas, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-100
Submitted February 1, 2008 – Filed February 12, 2008


AFFIRMED


Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, of Columbia, John Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kendrick Rice appeals from his convictions for two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor and two counts of exposing others to Human Immunodeficiency Virus.  Rice argues the trial court erred by allowing a State’s witness to impeach Rice’s testimony with regard to a collateral issue.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities:  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); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) (noting “[a] party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve it, but 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 a party cannot argue one basis for objection at trial and another ground on appeal). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.


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