State v. Thomas ( 2009 )

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.

Efrain Thomas, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Lee County
Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-059
Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January 22, 2009   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Chief Appellant Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all of Columbia; and Solicitor C. Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM:  Efrain Thomas appeals his conviction for murder and possession of a firearm during a violent crime and his sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment, arguing the circuit court erred in permitting the State to impeach him at trial using a prior conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon, arguing the prejudice he suffered because of this testimony was unfair and outweighed any probative value.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Ohler v. U.S., 529 U.S. 753, 755 (2000) (“Generally, a party introducing evidence cannot complain on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted.”); State v. Wannamaker, 346 S.C. 495, 499, 552 S.E.2d 284, 286 (2001) (holding a party must object contemporaneously to the admission of evidence to preserve that issue for appellate review); State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 199, 498 S.E.2d 642, 647 (1998) (placing on appellant the burden of presenting a sufficient record to allow review); State v. Mueller, 319 S.C. 266, 268, 460 S.E.2d 409, 410 (Ct. App. 1995) (requiring a ruling on a motion in limine to exclude evidence to be elicited from a witness must be obtained immediately prior to the witness’s testimony in order to preserve the ruling for appellate review without a contemporaneous objection).  

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.