Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-233 - State v. Cauthen

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.

David R. Cauthen Jr., Appellant.


Appeal From Lancaster County
John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-233 
Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed April 18, 2012


AFFIRMED


Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Douglas Barfield, of Chester, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: David R. Cauthen Jr. appeals his conviction of murder, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence Cauthen asked investigating officers if he could plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Wannamaker, 346 S.C. 495, 499, 552 S.E.2d 284, 286 (2001) (holding a ruling in limine is not final and that unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling procured, the issue is not preserved for review); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal.").[2] 

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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

[2] Even if Cauthen's issue on appeal were preserved for appellate review, we would affirm.  See State v. Evins, 373 S.C. 404, 421, 645 S.E.2d 904, 912 (2007) (finding that the relevance, materiality, and admissibility of evidence are matters within the sole discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's findings on such issues will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion).