State v. Lance Antonio Brewton ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                     THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
    In The Court of Appeals
    The State, Respondent,
    v.
    Lance Antonio Brewton, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2018-001572
    Appeal From Spartanburg County
    J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge
    Opinion No. 5912
    Heard November 10, 2021 – Filed May 25, 2022
    AFFIRMED
    Appellate Defender Adam Sinclair Ruffin, of Columbia,
    for Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
    Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch,
    Jr., both of Columbia, and Solicitor Barry J. Barnette, of
    Spartanburg, all for Respondent.
    KONDUROS, J.: Lance Antonio Brewton appeals his convictions for murder and
    possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. Brewton
    contends the trial court erred by (1) failing to instruct the jury on the lesser
    included offense of involuntary manslaughter and the defense of accident; (2)
    prohibiting his testimony regarding witchcraft and hearing voices in his head; and
    (3) allowing the State to impeach him with his 1999 robbery conviction. We
    affirm.
    FACTS
    On the morning of September 25, 2017, Brewton arrived at Natalie Niemitalo's
    house. Brewton and Niemitalo had been in an on-again, off-again relationship for
    two years. After their friend Kevin Schuerman arrived, the three decided to go
    purchase cigarettes and drinks. Niemitalo got into the driver's seat of her mother's
    black, two-door Honda Civic, Brewton got into the back seat on the passenger side,
    and Schuerman got into the passenger seat.
    Once in the car, Niemitalo began putting on makeup. After about five minutes,
    Brewton exited the car, walked around to the driver's side, and began arguing with
    Niemitalo because he wanted to drive. Shortly after the argument began,
    Schuerman heard a gunshot. Schuerman exited the car and ran towards Niemitalo's
    garage because he thought he had been shot. After Schuerman realized he had not
    been shot, he returned to the driveway and watched Brewton pull Niemitalo out of
    the car, get into the driver's seat, and drive away.
    Schuerman approached Niemitalo and saw she was gasping for air and in pain.
    Schuerman called 9-1-1 and held a towel on Niemitalo's wound until first
    responders arrived. While first responders were treating Niemitalo, Brewton drove
    by her house in the Honda Civic. Brewton drove by Niemitalo's house a second
    time, and an officer initiated a traffic stop by turning on his blue lights; however,
    Brewton continued driving for twenty-three miles. Officers apprehended Brewton
    after he collided with a vehicle in the driveway of his home.
    First responders airlifted Niemitalo to a hospital, but she died from a single
    gunshot wound. The doctor that performed Niemitalo's autopsy determined she
    bled to death after a bullet entered her upper-left torso and exited nine-and-a-half
    inches lower on the right side of her back. Police collected physical evidence
    associated with the shooting including the Honda Civic, Brewton's gun, a fired
    bullet, and a spent shell casing. Brewton was indicted for murder, possession of a
    firearm during the commission of a violent crime, escape, driving under
    suspension, and failure to stop when signaled by an officer using a blue light.
    A forensic psychologist evaluated Brewton and determined he was competent to
    stand trial for an unrelated federal weapons charge.1 In a pretrial motions hearing,
    the State presented Brewton's mental evaluation and moved to prevent him from
    1
    The incident leading to Brewton's federal conviction for "Possession of a Firearm
    by a Convicted Felon" occurred nine days before Niemitalo's death.
    presenting any evidence regarding mental illness or hearing voices. The State
    argued any testimony about mental illness or hearing voices would not be relevant
    because the forensic psychologist concluded Brewton did not have a mental illness
    and was competent to stand trial. Alternatively, the State contended that if the
    testimony was relevant, it would be highly prejudicial.
    Brewton argued he was not presenting the testimony about hearing voices as a
    defense for his actions; rather, Brewton argued he should be allowed to present the
    testimony as an alternative explanation to the State's assertion that he fled due to a
    guilty mind. Initially, the trial court indicated the testimony would not be relevant
    and would confuse the jury because Brewton did not suffer from a mental illness;
    however, the trial court delayed making a final determination until after Brewton
    proffered the testimony.
    Additionally, the State disclosed it planned to introduce Brewton's federal weapons
    conviction and two common law robbery convictions from 1999 and 2008.
    Brewton argued the federal weapons conviction was not relevant, but the State
    maintained it would preclude an accident jury instruction because Brewton was not
    allowed to possess a weapon. Brewton also moved to prevent the State from using
    any remote convictions; again, the trial court delayed making a final determination.
    Brewton proceeded to trial for murder and possession of a weapon during the
    commission of a violent crime after he pled guilty to escape, driving under
    suspension, and failing to stop when signaled by an officer. Schuerman testified
    that Brewton was "acting erratic" and "on edge" when he got to Niemitalo's house
    but recalled Brewton's behavior had not concerned him. Schuerman stated the
    argument between Brewton and Niemitalo was not out of the ordinary and
    elaborated he had seen Brewton and Niemitalo in worse arguments; however,
    Schuerman clarified he had never seen any violence during their arguments.
    Schuerman also testified he did not see Brewton with a gun the morning of
    Niemitalo's death.
    An expert in firearm examination, Chad Smith, testified the gun involved did not
    have an external safety mechanism, which is typically thought of as a button that
    would prevent the gun from firing. Smith explained the gun would fire once five-
    and-a-half pounds of pressure was applied to its trigger, even if the pressure was
    applied unintentionally. Smith opined:
    The trigger guard is here . . . to guard that trigger from
    any kind of unintentional pressure against the trigger.
    But I suppose . . . something . . . could enter into the
    trigger guard . . . and if the firearm was pushed against
    that object and enough pressure . . . [was] exerted on that
    trigger, then it could fire.
    Still, Smith explained the gun would not fire unless its slide had been pulled back
    while it was loaded with ammunition. Smith testified he performed several tests
    on the weapon and concluded the recovered bullet and spent shell casing both
    came from Brewton's gun.
    At the conclusion of the State's case-in-chief, Brewton proffered his testimony
    regarding witchcraft and hearing voices in his head. Brewton testified he believed
    Niemitalo's mother and her friend Aaron2 practiced witchcraft and one of them had
    cast a spell on him that caused him to hear the voices. Brewton admitted
    Niemitalo's mother denied practicing witchcraft and Niemitalo never told him her
    mother practiced witchcraft; nevertheless, Brewton believed Niemitalo's mother
    practiced witchcraft because he believed she had also cast a spell on Aaron and
    Niemitalo told him she knew about the voices. Brewton estimated he had
    intermittently been under a spell for eight or ten months.
    Brewton described "experiencing paranoia" at Niemitalo's house on the morning of
    her death because the voices were telling him his family was being murdered.
    Brewton explained he got in the car's back seat because the voices were telling him
    people were trying to kill him. Brewton testified that while the group was sitting
    in the car, he observed a cement truck drive past Niemitalo's house, and the voices
    told him it was going to bury his family alive.
    Brewton recalled he wanted to drive so he could follow the cement truck, and he
    felt that Niemitalo was not putting on her makeup "fast enough." Brewton stated
    he left Niemitalo's house to find the cement truck. Brewton explained he did not
    stop to check on Niemitalo the first time he drove by her house because
    paramedics were already there and he wanted to keep looking for the cement truck.
    Brewton testified he drove by Niemitalo's house a second time because he could
    not find the cement truck and the voices had stopped speaking to him. Brewton
    admitted he did not stop the second time because police officers were there and he
    had drugs in the car.
    2
    The record does not contain Aaron's surname.
    The State objected to Brewton's proffer at its conclusion and argued it was filled
    with hearsay, not relevant, and highly prejudicial if relevant. Brewton responded
    he had the absolute right to testify, the hearsay would be omitted in front of the
    jury, and the probative value of his testimony would not be substantially
    outweighed by unfair prejudice. Brewton insisted he should be allowed to give an
    alternative reason for leaving the scene other than a guilty mind.
    The trial court ruled Brewton could not testify about witchcraft or hearing voices.
    The trial court found Brewton's proffer was largely based on hearsay and the
    danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed any probative value because it
    seemed to give rise to an unasserted mental illness defense. Additionally, the trial
    court determined Brewton's right to testify was not violated because he was not
    entirely prevented from testifying. The trial court explained Brewton could testify
    he was fearful and felt like he needed to leave Niemitalo's house.
    After Brewton elected to testify,3 the trial court ruled both of his robbery
    convictions were admissible because they were part of a "continuous course of
    conduct." The trial court also ruled that if the convictions were remote, their
    probative value substantially outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice. Brewton
    argued his 1999 conviction was remote because it was a separate charge from his
    2008 conviction. The trial court reiterated Brewton's convictions were a
    continuous criminal history because they were similar offenses that all occurred
    without a passage of ten years. Brewton maintained his 1999 conviction was
    remote because he finished serving that sentence in 2004 and he would be
    testifying in 2018. Brewton also asserted the probative value of that conviction
    was outweighed by unfair prejudice because there was limited value in attacking
    his credibility.
    However, Brewton asked the trial court if his convictions would be referred to as
    common law robbery convictions or as crimes involving dishonesty. The State
    responded it was willing to refer to the convictions as crimes of dishonesty, and the
    trial court concluded the convictions would be referred to as crimes of dishonesty.
    Brewton did not object.
    3
    The record indicates Brewton stated "I will not testify" after the trial court
    prohibited him from testifying about witchcraft and the voices. However, this
    appears to be a scrivener's error because Brewton went on to testify and it was not
    mentioned on appeal.
    Brewton's testimony was mostly consistent with Schuerman's, but Brewton
    admitted he was not legally allowed to possess a weapon, he had been on a drug
    binge that made him unable to sleep for the three days preceding Niemitalo's death,
    and he had used drugs the morning of Niemitalo's death. Brewton also testified
    that his gun fell out of his pocket as he got out of the car. Brewton explained he
    kept the gun in his hand after he picked it up because he assumed Niemitalo was
    going to let him drive and he preferred to keep it in the car's center console while
    driving.
    Brewton maintained he did not intentionally kill Niemitalo and claimed "the gun
    went off" when Niemitalo pushed his hand back as he reached into the car to grab
    its keys. Brewton testified he did not stop when signaled by officers because he
    had drugs in the car. Brewton explained he drove all the way to his house because
    he was afraid officers would shoot him. At the end of his direct examination,
    Brewton admitted he had been convicted of two crimes of dishonesty. The State
    did not mention crimes of dishonesty during its cross-examination of Brewton.
    After the defense rested, Brewton requested the trial court instruct the jury on
    involuntary manslaughter and accident. The State objected and asserted (1) an
    involuntary manslaughter instruction was improper because Brewton was not
    armed in self-defense and (2) an accident instruction was improper because
    Brewton was not legally able to possess a weapon. Brewton argued that even
    though his possession of the gun was unlawful, it was not the proximate cause of
    Niemitalo's death.
    The trial court declined to instruct the jury on either involuntary manslaughter or
    accident. The trial court reasoned Brewton was acting unlawfully by possessing
    the gun and trying to take the car from Niemitalo. Additionally, the trial court
    concluded Brewton was not exercising reasonable care in handling the gun.
    Following jury deliberations, Brewton was convicted of murder and possession of
    a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. The trial court sentenced
    Brewton to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This appeal followed.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    "In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only." State v.
    Baccus, 
    367 S.C. 41
    , 48, 
    625 S.E.2d 216
    , 220 (2006). "The conduct of a criminal
    trial is left largely to the sound discretion of the trial judge, who will not be
    reversed in the absence of a prejudicial abuse of discretion." State v. Bryant, 
    372 S.C. 305
    , 312, 
    642 S.E.2d 582
    , 586 (2007). "An abuse of discretion occurs when a
    trial court's decision is unsupported by the evidence or controlled by an error of
    law." 
    Id.
    LAW/ANALYSIS
    I. Jury Instructions
    Brewton argues the trial court erred by failing to give an involuntary manslaughter
    jury instruction because Brewton testified the shooting was unintentional and the
    record contained sufficient evidence Brewton acted recklessly in handling the gun.
    Brewton contends the trial court erred by failing to give an accident jury
    instruction because he testified the shooting was unintentional and the record
    contained sufficient evidence he used due care in handling the gun. Brewton
    maintains his illegal possession of a firearm did not preclude either jury instruction
    because his illegal possession did not proximately cause Niemitalo's death. We
    disagree.
    "[T]he trial court is required to charge only the current and correct law of South
    Carolina." State v. Marin, 
    415 S.C. 475
    , 482, 
    783 S.E.2d 808
    , 812 (2016)
    (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Brandt, 
    393 S.C. 526
    , 549, 
    713 S.E.2d 591
    ,
    603 (2011)). "The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence
    presented at trial." State v. Brown, 
    362 S.C. 258
    , 261-62, 
    607 S.E.2d 93
    , 95 (Ct.
    App. 2004) (quoting State v. Hill, 
    315 S.C. 260
    , 262, 
    433 S.E.2d 848
    , 849 (1993)).
    "If there is any evidence to support a jury charge, the trial [court] should grant the
    request." Id. at 262, 607 S.E.2d at 95. "To warrant reversal, a trial [court]'s refusal
    to give a requested jury charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the
    defendant." Id.
    Involuntary manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of
    murder, and "is defined as the unintentional killing of
    another without malice while engaged in either (1) the
    commission of some unlawful act not amounting to a
    felony and not naturally tending to cause death or great
    bodily harm, or (2) the doing of a lawful act with a
    reckless disregard for the safety of others."
    State v. Scott, 
    414 S.C. 482
    , 487, 
    779 S.E.2d 529
    , 531 (2015) (quoting State v.
    Sams, 
    410 S.C. 303
    , 309, 
    764 S.E.2d 511
    , 514 (2014)).
    "If there is any evidence warranting a charge on involuntary manslaughter, then the
    charge must be given." State v. Wharton, 
    381 S.C. 209
    , 216, 
    672 S.E.2d 786
    , 789
    (2009). "In determining whether to charge the lesser included offense of
    manslaughter[,] the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
    defendant." State v. Gibson, 
    390 S.C. 347
    , 356, 
    701 S.E.2d 766
    , 770 (Ct. App.
    2010). "Declining to charge the lesser included offense is warranted when it 'very
    clearly appear[s] that . . . no evidence whatsoever [exists] tending to reduce the
    crime from murder to manslaughter.'" 
    Id.
     (alterations in original) (quoting State v.
    Brayboy, 
    387 S.C. 174
    , 179, 
    691 S.E.2d 482
    , 485 (Ct. App. 2010)).
    Additionally, "[f]or a homicide to be excusable on the ground of accident, it must
    be shown that the killing was unintentional, the defendant was acting lawfully, and
    due care was exercised in the handling of the weapon." Wharton, 
    381 S.C. at 216
    ,
    
    672 S.E.2d at 789
    . "Evidence of an accidental discharge of a gun will support a
    charge of accident where the defendant lawfully arms himself in self-defense." 
    Id.
    "[U]nlawful possession of a firearm can . . . constitute an unlawful activity . . .
    [that] preclude[s] an accident defense if it is the proximate cause of the killing."
    State v. Burriss, 
    334 S.C. 256
    , 262 n.5, 
    513 S.E.2d 104
    , 107 n.5 (1999). "[I]t
    would be incongruous not to apply this same reasoning in the context of
    involuntary manslaughter." Id. at 265, 
    513 S.E.2d at 109
    . "[T]he State [must]
    prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unlawful act in which the [defendant]
    was engaged was at least the proximate cause of the homicide." Id. at 262, 
    513 S.E.2d at 107
     (quoting State v. Goodson, 
    312 S.C. 278
    , 280 n.1, 
    440 S.E.2d 370
    ,
    372 n.1 (1994)).
    The issue of whether a defendant is entitled to involuntary manslaughter and
    accident jury instructions despite unlawfully possessing a firearm was developed in
    Goodson and Burriss. In Goodson, our supreme court determined the illegally
    armed defendant was not entitled to an accident jury instruction. 312 S.C. at 281,
    
    440 S.E.2d at 372
    . In that case, the defendant was drinking while playing pool at a
    bar and got into an argument with another player over a bet. Id. at 279, 
    440 S.E.2d at 371
    . The other player threatened the defendant with a pool stick, and the
    defendant responded by drawing a gun from his pocket. 
    Id.
     The bar's owner
    intervened and escorted the defendant outside. 
    Id.
     While outside, the defendant
    shot and killed the owner. Id. at 279, 
    440 S.E.2d at 371-72
    . The defendant
    claimed the gun "just went off" as the owner approached him. Id. at 279, 
    440 S.E.2d at 372
    .
    The Goodson court rejected the State's proposition that unlawful possession of a
    firearm always precluded an accident jury instruction. 
    Id.
     at 280 n.1, 
    440 S.E.2d at
    372 n.1. The Goodson court noted the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
    the defendant's unlawful act proximately caused the homicide. 
    Id.
     However, the
    Goodson court reasoned the defendant was not entitled to an accident jury
    instruction because he did not present any evidence that he was lawfully acting in
    self-defense. Id. at 281, 
    440 S.E.2d at 372
    .
    In a concurring opinion, Justice Toal stated she would have held the defendant was
    not entitled to an accident jury instruction because he was not lawfully armed when
    he shot the victim. Id. at 281, 
    440 S.E.2d at 372-73
     (Toal, J., concurring). Justice
    Toal reasoned any right the defendant had to be armed due to the dispute with the
    other pool player ended when the owner removed him from that situation. Id. at
    282, 
    440 S.E.2d at 373
     (Toal, J. concurring). Still, Justice Toal agreed with the
    majority that the defendant's unlawful possession must have proximately caused
    the victim's injury to preclude an accident jury instruction. 
    Id.
     (Toal, J.,
    concurring). Justice Toal concluded "where, as here, the defendant unlawfully
    possesses a firearm, has been drinking heavily all day, and kills the [victim] with
    the unlawful firearm, the unlawful possession of the firearm is a proximate cause
    of the injury." 
    Id.
     (Toal, J., concurring).
    In Burriss, our supreme court held the illegally armed defendant was entitled to
    involuntary manslaughter and accident jury instructions. 
    334 S.C. at 264-65
    , 
    513 S.E.2d at 109
    . In that case, two men attempted to rob the defendant. Id. at 258,
    
    513 S.E.2d at 106
    . After the attackers threw the defendant to the ground, the
    defendant drew a gun from his pocket and fired two shots into the ground. Id. at
    258-59, 
    513 S.E.2d 106
    . The attackers initially backed away, but one of the
    attackers advanced again as the defendant was getting up. Id. at 259, 
    513 S.E.2d 106
    . When the defendant picked up his gun, it fired a shot that killed the
    advancing attacker. 
    Id.
    The Burriss court agreed with Justice Toal's analysis in her Goodson concurrence
    and clarified Goodson as holding "unlawful possession of a firearm can . . .
    constitute an unlawful activity . . . [that] preclude[s] an accident defense if it is the
    proximate cause of the killing." 
    Id.
     at 262 n.5, 
    513 S.E.2d at
    107 n.5. The Burriss
    court reasoned "a person can be acting lawfully, even if he is in unlawful
    possession of a weapon, if he was entitled to arm himself in self-defense at the
    time of the shooting." Id. at 262, 
    513 S.E.2d at 108
    . Further, the Burriss court
    determined "it would be incongruous not to apply this same reasoning in the
    context of involuntary manslaughter." Id. at 265, 
    513 S.E.2d at 109
    . The Burriss
    court concluded the defendant was entitled to both accident and involuntary
    manslaughter jury instructions because evidence in the record supported his claim
    that he was lawfully armed in self-defense when the shooting occurred. Id. at
    262-63, 265, 
    513 S.E.2d at 108-09
    .
    Here, the trial court did not err by refusing to give involuntary manslaughter or
    accident jury instructions. Brewton directs this court to State v. Slater4 and State v.
    Williams5 as support for his proposition that his illegal possession of a weapon did
    not preclude involuntary manslaughter or accident jury instructions. However, we
    find those cases inapplicable because they revolved around whether the defendants
    were lawfully armed in self-defense. See Slater, 373 S.C. at 71, 644 S.E.2d at 53
    (noting "where the defendant's unlawful possession of a weapon is merely
    incidental to the defendant's lawful act of arming himself in self-defense, the
    unlawful possession of the weapon will not prevent the use of an accident
    defense"); Williams, 427 S.C. at 254 n.4, 830 S.E.2d at 908 n.4 (clarifying "the
    question is whether [the weapon] is the proximate cause of the 'difficulty' or
    'occasion' that led to the killing" in determining whether a defendant is precluded
    from a self-defense jury instruction).
    In stark contrast to the defendants' arguments in Goodson, Burriss, Slater, and
    Williams, Brewton does not argue he was lawfully armed in self-defense. Indeed,
    this record contains no evidence Brewton was defending himself at the time of the
    shooting. Brewton and Schuerman both testified Brewton and Niemitalo were
    arguing but not physically fighting. Further, Brewton testified the gun fired when
    Niemitalo pushed his hand back as he reached for the car keys; Brewton did not
    testify that Niemitalo attempted to take or control the gun. Consequently, like the
    defendant in Goodson, Brewton presented no evidence he was lawfully armed in
    self-defense.
    Therefore, the dispositive question of this issue is whether Brewton's illegal
    possession proximately caused Niemitalo's death; we determine it did. Like the
    defendant in Goodson, Brewton admitted he was unlawfully handling a loaded
    firearm while intoxicated. Brewton testified he had been on an illegal drug binge
    that prevented him from sleeping the three days preceding Niemitalo's death;
    Brewton also admitted he used illegal drugs the morning of Niemitalo's death.6
    Additionally, Brewton testified the gun fell out of his pocket as he got out of the
    4
    
    373 S.C. 66
    , 
    644 S.E.2d 50
     (2007).
    5
    
    427 S.C. 246
    , 
    830 S.E.2d 904
     (2019).
    6
    The record indicates the shooting also occurred during the morning hours.
    car, he held the gun in his hand while arguing with Niemitalo, and he still held the
    gun in his hand when he reached into the car to take its keys. Further, Brewton
    held a gun that would fire once it had five-and-a-half pounds of pressure applied to
    its trigger, even if that pressure was unintentional. Finally, like the defendant in
    Goodson, Brewton's illegally possessed gun fired the shot that killed Niemitalo.
    Therefore, Brewton's unlawful possession proximately caused Niemitalo's death.
    Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's decision to refuse to instruct the jury on
    involuntary manslaughter and accident.7
    II. Brewton's Proffered Testimony
    Brewton asserts the trial court erred by prohibiting him from testifying about
    witchcraft and hearing voices. Brewton contends he should have been able to
    testify the voices caused him to flee the scene after the shooting. Brewton argues
    that testimony was relevant to rebut the State's assertion that he fled the scene due
    to a guilty conscience, which allowed the jury to infer malice. Brewton insists his
    inability to explain the cause of his flight to the jury in his own words violated his
    fundamental right to testify in his own defense. We disagree.
    "[A]n exception to the trial court's ruling will be deemed abandoned where the
    appellant fails to specifically argue it in his brief." State v. Black, 
    319 S.C. 515
    ,
    518 n.2, 
    462 S.E.2d 311
    , 313 n.2 (Ct. App. 1995). "[S]hort, conclusory statements
    made without supporting authority are deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore
    not presented for review." State v. Jones, 
    392 S.C. 647
    , 655, 
    709 S.E.2d 696
    , 700
    (Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Glasscock, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 
    348 S.C. 76
    ,
    81, 
    557 S.E.2d 689
    , 691 (Ct. App. 2001)). "[A]n unappealed ruling, right or
    wrong, is the law of the case." Atl. Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis,
    
    398 S.C. 323
    , 329, 
    730 S.E.2d 282
    , 285 (2012); see also State v. Williams, 
    427 S.C. 148
    , 157, 
    829 S.E.2d 702
    , 706-07 (2019) (explaining an unappealed jury
    instruction became the law of the case).
    Here, the trial court limited the scope of Brewton's testimony to prohibit the jury
    from hearing about witchcraft and hearing voices because it determined his
    testimony (1) was largely based on hearsay and (2) would result in unfair prejudice
    by confusing the jury. The trial court also determined prohibiting Brewton from
    7
    Additionally, Brewton was precluded from an accident jury instruction because
    he was not exercising due care in handling the weapon. See Wharton, 
    381 S.C. at 216
    , 
    672 S.E.2d at 789
     (stating a defendant must have been exercising due care in
    handling the weapon for a homicide to be excusable by accident).
    testifying about witchcraft and hearing voices did not violate his right to testify
    because Brewton was not entirely prohibited from testifying; indeed, Brewton
    testified in his own defense.
    While Brewton objected to the trial court's ruling on all grounds, he only argues on
    appeal that his right to testify was violated. Brewton's brief provides no authority
    regarding the trial court's ruling that Brewton's proffered testimony was largely
    based on hearsay and would result in unfair prejudice. Consequently, Brewton
    abandoned his arguments that his proffered testimony was not hearsay and would
    not result in unfair prejudice. As a result, the trial court's ruling that Brewton's
    proffered testimony was hearsay and unfairly prejudicial became the law of the
    case. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's decision to prohibit Brewton from
    testifying about witchcraft and hearing voices.
    III. Impeachment
    Brewton asserts the trial court erred by allowing the State to impeach him with his
    1999 common law robbery conviction. Brewton contends that conviction was
    remote because his sentence expired in 2004 and he testified in 2018.
    Additionally, Brewton argues the trial court did not conduct the required State v.
    Colf 8 analysis. We disagree.
    "To preserve an issue for review[,] there must be a contemporaneous objection that
    is ruled upon by the trial court." State v. Johnson, 
    363 S.C. 53
    , 58, 
    609 S.E.2d 520
    , 523 (2005). An appellant is barred from arguing an issue on appeal if trial
    "counsel acquiesced [to a ruling] . . . and made no other objections regarding [that
    ruling] . . . ." State v. Mitchell, 
    330 S.C. 189
    , 195, 
    498 S.E.2d 642
    , 645 (1998); see
    also State v. McKinney, 
    258 S.C. 570
    , 
    190 S.E.2d 30
     (1972) (finding the appellant
    waived his objection to certain testimony by cross-examining a witness regarding
    that testimony without reserving his previous objection).
    Brewton ultimately waived for appellate review his contention the trial court erred
    by allowing the State to impeach him with his 1999 common law robbery
    conviction. Brewton initially objected to the trial court's ruling that the State could
    impeach him with his 1999 conviction and argued it was remote. However,
    Brewton asked if his convictions would be referred to by their name or as crimes of
    dishonesty. The State agreed to refer to both convictions as crimes of dishonesty,
    8
    
    337 S.C. 622
    , 
    525 S.E.2d 246
     (2000).
    and the trial court allowed both convictions to be referred to as crimes of
    dishonesty. Critically, Brewton did not object or reserve his previous objection.
    Brewton testified on direct examination he had been convicted of two crimes of
    dishonesty. Before the parties presented their closing arguments, Brewton
    renewed all of his objections; however, the record indicates the trial court did not
    respond. In its closing argument, the State referred to Brewton's convictions as
    crimes of dishonesty. Again, Brewton did not object. Consequently, Brewton
    waived his objection that his 1999 conviction was remote because he acquiesced to
    referring to it as a crime of dishonesty.
    CONCLUSION
    In short, the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on involuntary
    manslaughter and accident. Additionally, the trial court's decision to prohibit
    Brewton's proffered testimony became the law of the case. Finally, Brewton failed
    to preserve for appellate review the trial court's decision to allow the State to
    impeach him with his 1999 conviction. Accordingly, Brewton's convictions for
    murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime are
    AFFIRMED.
    HILL and HEWITT, JJ., concur.