State v. Archie ( 2008 )

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.

Leroy Archie, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Anderson County
Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-572
Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October 14, 2008

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender Lanelle C. Durant, 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, of Columbia; Solicitor Christina T. Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Leroy Archie was indicted for and convicted of murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.  Archie appeals, arguing the trial court erred in allowing a forensic pathologist to testify to the distance a person could travel after suffering a lacerated aorta.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the following authorities:  State v. Rice, 375 S.C. 302, 323, 652 S.E.2d 409, 419 (Ct. App. 2007) (“A general objection which does not specify the particular ground on which the objection is based is insufficient to preserve a question for review.”);  Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (“It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.”);  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).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., HUFF, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

---

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