State v. Harris ( 2021 )

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.
Ivan Lamar Tyrell Harris, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2018-002089
Appeal From Greenwood County
William A. McKinnon, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-430
Submitted October 1, 2021 – Filed December 8, 2021
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Victor R. Seeger, of Columbia, for
Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch,
Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor David M. Stumbo, of
Greenwood, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Ivan Lamar Tyrell Harris appeals his conviction for distributing
heroin and sentence of ten years' imprisonment. On appeal, Harris argues the trial
court erred when it replayed a witness's testimony and asserts replaying the
testimony placed undue emphasis on that testimony.
1. We find Harris failed to preserve his argument because Harris did not object to
the trial court's proposed response to the jury's question or to the response when
given to the jury. See State v. Rogers, 361 S.C. 178, 183, 603 S.E.2d 910, 912-13
(Ct. App. 2004) ("There are four basic requirements to preserving issues at trial for
appellate review. The issue must have been (1) raised to and ruled upon by the trial
court, (2) raised by the appellant, (3) raised in a timely manner, and (4) raised to
the trial court with sufficient specificity." (quoting Jean Hoefer Toal et al.,
Appellate Practice in South Carolina 57 (2d ed. 2002))); State v. Rios, 388 S.C.
335, 342, 696 S.E.2d 608, 612 (Ct. App. 2010) (recognizing "a party cannot
acquiesce to an issue at trial and then complain on appeal"). Although Harris
initially expressed hesitation regarding the trial court's proposed response, he
ultimately acquiesced and did not object when the trial court responded to the jury.
Therefore, we find he did not preserve this argument for appellate review.
2. We find the trial court acted within its discretion when it allowed the jury to
rehear the testimony of a State's witness. Following the jury's request to hear the
portion of the witness's testimony regarding the weight of the heroin confiscated,
the trial court replayed the testimony in its entirety to avoid emphasizing a specific
portion of the testimony. Therefore, we affirm pursuant to the following
authorities: State v. Plyler, 275 S.C. 291, 298, 270 S.E.2d 126, 129 (1980) (stating
the trial court, in its discretion, may permit the jurors to review testimony during
their deliberations); id. (finding there was no abuse of discretion when only the
direct examination was played and the trial judge declined to play the witness's
cross-examination in order to prevent overemphasis of the portion replayed for the
jury).
AFFIRMED. 1
LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.