Opinion ID: 2508560
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timing of videos' introduction

Text: Appellant argues the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce the videos of the interviews before the children had testified. Specifically, appellant argues allowing the videos to be introduced at that time violated his constitutional rights to due process and confrontation. We disagree. An out-of-court statement of a child under the age of 12 may be admissible under certain circumstances. See S.C.Code Ann. § 17-23-175 (Supp.2010). Section 17-23-175 provides, in pertinent part: (A) In a general sessions court proceeding . . . an out-of-court statement of a child is admissible if: (1) the statement was given in response to questioning conducted during an investigative interview of the child; (2) an audio and visual recording of the statement is preserved on film, videotape, or other electronic means, except as provided in subsection (F); (3) the child testifies at the proceeding and is subject to cross-examination on the elements of the offense and the making of the out-of-court statement; and (4) the court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement provides particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Prior to trial, the State requested a ruling on the introduction of the videos of the victims' interviews with Williams, pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 17-23-175 (Supp.2010). While appellant did not challenge the admissibility of the videos, he did argue that, under the statute, the videos could not be introduced before the victims testified. Specifically, appellant argued the statute contemplates [the victims] be subject to cross-examination before the [videos] come in. Appellant did not, however, make any constitutional arguments in support of his objection. After reviewing the statute, the trial court allowed the State to introduce the video prior to the victims' testimony, with the understanding that the victims would in fact be called upon to testify. An objection must be made on a specific ground. State v. Stahlnecker, 386 S.C. 609, 617, 690 S.E.2d 565, 570 (2010) (citing State v. Nichols, 325 S.C. 111, 120, 481 S.E.2d 118, 123 (1997)). For an issue to be properly preserved it has to be raised to and ruled on by the trial court. Id. This rule also applies to constitutional arguments. See State v. Owens, 378 S.C. 636, 664 S.E.2d 80 (2008) (confrontation clause and due process arguments not preserved for review). Accordingly, the argument now made on appeal, that appellant's constitutional rights were violated, is not preserved for this Court's review.