Opinion ID: 1384330
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: weston's response to kathy jarvis

Text: Weston objects to the testimony of Kathy Jarvis, the Richland County sheriff's deputy who served as courtesy officer for the apartment complex, to the effect that, when questioned about his Mother's disappearance, Weston wouldn't answer anything, was totally unresponsive, and did not seem concerned about his mother. Although Weston now complains Jarvis gave unqualified expert testimony, the only objection below was that Jarvis was giving her opinion. Accordingly, this issue is procedurally barred from review because it differs from the objection raised at trial. State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 587 S.E.2d 691 (2003); State v. Prioleau, 345 S.C. 404, 548 S.E.2d 213 (2001); State v. Benton, 338 S.C. 151, 526 S.E.2d 228 (2000) (party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal). In any event, Jarvis was simply relaying her personal experience in law enforcement and the fact that she had not encountered anyone so unresponsive. We find no basis for objection. State v. McClinton, 265 S.C. 171, 217 S.E.2d 584 (1975) (witness may state his impression or inference with respect to the appearance of a person, animal, object, or place if he has had adequate opportunity for observation, the details of such appearance cannot be reproduced before the jury to enable them to draw a correct inference, and he states as much as possible of the constituent facts).