Opinion ID: 1277611
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application of Torrence

Text: Rocheville raises several issues on appeal which were not raised below. In prior capital cases, we, adhering to the doctrine of in favorem vitae , reviewed the entire record for legal error. In Torrence , we abolished the doctrine and held that a contemporaneous objection is necessary in all trials beginning after the date of this opinion to properly preserve errors for our direct appellate review. Id. at 69, 406 S.E. (2d) at 328. Rocheville argues that although Torrence abolished in favorem vitae prior to Rocheville's trial, the doctrine should still be applied to this case because Rocheville was indicted prior to the filing of the Torrence opinion. We adhere to Torrence and hold that the doctrine remains available only to defendants whose trials commenced before Torrence was filed. Rocheville raises an issue for the first time on appeal that illustrates one of the reasons why this Court abolished the doctrine. Rocheville asserts that the record fails to disclose a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to address the jury at the close of the guilt phase and to testify in the sentencing phase. Under in favorem vitae , the omission of knowing and intelligent waiver on the record mandated reversal. State v. Orr , 304 S.C. 185, 403 S.E. (2d) 623 (1991); State v. Reed , 293 S.C. 515, 362 S.E. (2d) 13 (1987). Overruled on other grounds by Torrence, supra . Thus, a defendant would be encouraged to purposely refrain from raising the issue of obtaining a waiver in the record. This incentive to sandbag was cited by Torrence to be the primary danger associated with in favorem vitae. Torrence , 305 S.C. at 64, 406 S.E. (2d) at 326. In favorem vitae review of the waiver issue would preclude this Court from analyzing whether the failure to obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver on the record was harmless error. The trial record is silent on the possibility that the defendant was, in fact, adequately informed of his rights, and did, for strategic reasons, desire to waive those rights. Review of this issue is better left to a postconviction relief proceeding where the facts surrounding the trial can be fully explored. State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 292 S.E. (2d) 598 (1982). [4] Accordingly, we do not address any issues raised on appeal which were not raised in the trial court.