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,
Charles Nemon Vandross, Appellant.
Appeal from Greenwood County
Wyatt T. Saunders, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-192
Submitted April 1, 2009 – Filed May 5, 2009
Chief Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, 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 Melody J. Brown, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jerry W. Peace, of Greenwood, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Charles Nemon Vandross appeals his convictions for murder, first-degree burglary, kidnapping, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities.
1. As to whether the trial court erred by preventing Vandross from introducing evidence of third party guilt: State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 121, 551 S.E.2d 240, 244 (2001) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Gregory, 198 S.C. 98, 104-05, 16 S.E.2d 532, 534-35 (1941) ("[E]vidence which can have (no) other effect than to cast a bare suspicion upon another, or to raise a conjectural inference as to the commission of the crime by another, is not admissible . . . . [B]efore such testimony can be received, there must be such proof of connection with it, such a train of facts or circumstances, as tends clearly to point out such other person as the guilty party. Remote acts, disconnected and outside the crime itself, cannot be separately proved for such a purpose.").
2. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting photographs of the crime scene, including photographs of a Bible in close proximity to the victim: Holy Loch Distribs., Inc. v. Hitchcock, 340 S.C. 20, 24, 531 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2000) ("In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."); State v. Benton, 338 S.C. 151, 157, 526 S.E.2d 228, 231 (2000) (holding an appellant may not argue one ground for objection at trial and a different ground on appeal).
SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.