Opinion ID: 1279040
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prison Conditions Questions

Text: Appellant argues the trial court erred by allowing the State, on re-cross examination, to ask Aiken about prison conditions. We find this issue is not preserved for review because appellant did not raise this issue to the trial court before the testimony was presented and did not make a contemporaneous objection when the testimony was actually elicited. Further, the trial court did not rule on this issue as now stated by appellant. See State v. Moore, 357 S.C. 458, 593 S.E.2d 608 (2004) (to be preserved for appeal, issue must be raised to and ruled on by trial court); State v. Byram, 326 S.C. 107, 485 S.E.2d 360 (1997) (party cannot argue one ground below and then argue different ground on appeal). See also State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 609 S.E.2d 520 (2005) (to preserve an issue for review there must be a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial court). We take this opportunity, however, to caution the State and the defense that the evidence presented in a penalty phase of a capital trial is to be restricted to the individual defendant and the individual defendant's actions, behavior, and character. Generally, questions regarding escape and prison conditions are not relevant to the question of whether a defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without parole. We emphasize that how inmates, other than the defendant at trial, are treated in prison; and whether other inmates have escaped from prison, is inappropriate evidence in the penalty phase of a capital trial. We admonish both the State and the defense that the penalty phase should focus solely on the defendant and any evidence introduced in the penalty phase should be connected to that particular defendant.
Appellant argues the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to sentence him to death because the murder indictment did not allege an aggravating circumstance. He argues that Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), holds that aggravating factors are elements of the offense of capital murder that must be charged in the indictment. We have recently addressed this issue in several cases. See State v. Crisp, 362 S.C. 412, 608 S.E.2d 429 (2005) (under South Carolina law, aggravating circumstances need not be alleged in murder indictment); State v. Wood, 362 S.C. 135, 607 S.E.2d 57 (2004), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2942, 162 L.Ed.2d 873 (2005) (same); State v. Downs, 361 S.C. 141, 604 S.E.2d 377 (2004) (same). As stated in those cases, the aggravating factors enumerated in S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-20(C)(a) (2003) are sentencing factors, not elements of murder, and they need not be in the indictment. Therefore, the instant indictment is valid.
Appellant argues his pants were seized during an illegal warrantless arrest and that the watch and liquid material found in and on the pants should have been suppressed. The murder occurred in Dorchester County. Appellant was arrested, on February 17, 2001, at his wife's home in Orangeburg County pursuant to an Orangeburg County arrest warrant for receiving stolen goods that was issued on December 1, 2000. On the morning following the murder, several officers went to the residence of appellant's wife, Dorothy. The officers present were a Branchville police officer, an Orangeburg County deputy, and two officers from Dorchester County. The Branchville officer testified that, although he did not have the original, he had a certified copy of the Orangeburg County warrant and that the officers went to Dorothy's house [7] pursuant to that warrant. He further testified Dorothy invited him into the house and he stepped inside and told her they were looking for appellant. He stated he showed Dorothy a copy of the arrest warrant. Dorothy replied to him that she did not know where appellant was and indicated it was okay for the officers to look around. The Branchville officer stated he did not pull out a consent to search form before searching Dorothy's home. Dorothy confirmed the officers said they had a warrant and that she stated the officers could come in and search her home. Dorothy testified she let the officers in voluntarily and they had her permission to search the home. Appellant was found hiding behind a bed. He was arrested pursuant to the receiving stolen goods warrant at that time and was transported to the Branchville Police Department. At the time of his arrest, appellant was wearing only underwear and he asked for his clothes. Before his wife could give him his black pants, an officer intervened to search the pants. The officer wanted to check the pants for weapons for safety purposes. When the officer found a lady's watch inside the pants, the officer decided the pants needed to be confiscated. Appellant argues the trial court should have suppressed the evidence seized at Dorothy's home because the arrest was unlawful and because Dorothy had not consented to the search. Initially, the State argues this issue is not preserved for review because appellant did not renew his objection to the evidence when it was received at trial. In most cases, making a motion in limine to exclude evidence at the beginning of trial does not preserve the issue for review because a motion in limine is not a final determination. State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 541 S.E.2d 837 (2001); State v. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 479 S.E.2d 57 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1277, 117 S.Ct. 2460, 138 L.Ed.2d 217 (1997) (same). The moving party must make a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is introduced. Id. An exception to this rule is where a judge makes a ruling on the admission of evidence on the record immediately prior to the introduction of the evidence in question. In that case, the aggrieved party does not need to renew the objection. State v. Forrester, supra . Appellant did not renew his objection when the evidence of the watch found inside the pants and the petroleum on the pants was introduced. The trial court's decision to allow the evidence was not made immediately prior to the introduction of the evidence in question. Therefore, this issue is not preserved for appellate review. Despite the lack of preservation, we will address the merits. When reviewing a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case, an appellate court must affirm the trial court's ruling if there is any evidence to support the ruling. State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 603 S.E.2d 594 (2004). The appellate court will reverse only when there is clear error. Id. Appellant was legally arrested pursuant to a valid warrant. The record indicates a warrant for receiving stolen goods had been issued prior to appellant's arrest and that the arresting officer, while possibly not in possession of the warrant itself, was acting pursuant to the warrant when the arrest was made. Consequently, the trial court did not err by refusing the motion to suppress on this ground. See State v. Holmes, 320 S.C. 259, 464 S.E.2d 334 (1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1248, 116 S.Ct. 2507, 135 L.Ed.2d 197 (1996) (arrest of defendant properly made and clothes seized from defendant at time of arrest could be admitted in murder prosecution, where warrant had been issued prior to arrest and arresting officer was acting pursuant to warrant, even though warrant not physically in officer's possession); State v. Sims, 304 S.C. 409, 405 S.E.2d 377 (1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1103, 112 S.Ct. 1193, 117 L.Ed.2d 434 (1992) (arresting officer who was aware but not in possession of valid arrest warrants was authorized to enter motel room to make arrest). Further, appellant argues the motion to suppress should have been granted because his wife did not consent to the search of her home. This argument is without merit because appellant's wife specifically testified she gave the officers permission to enter and search the home. There is no evidence to support appellant's assertion. Cf. Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981) (warrantless searches of a home are impermissible absent consent or exigent circumstances). Additionally, the search of appellant's pants and the seizure of those pants and the watch were permissible as a search incident to arrest. After being arrested, appellant requested that he be allowed to put on his pants. However, before being given the pants, the officer determined the pants should be searched for safety purposes. This search was reasonable. See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (ample justification for a search of arrestee's person and area within his immediate control, that is, the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence); State v. Crowe, 258 S.C. 258, 188 S.E.2d 379, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1077, 93 S.Ct. 691, 34 L.Ed.2d 666 (1972) (same). See also State v. Brown, 289 S.C. 581, 347 S.E.2d 882 (1986) (search may be conducted incident to an arrest only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest). Accordingly, the trial court did not err by refusing to suppress the evidence as requested by appellant. See State v. Missouri, supra (appellate court must affirm trial court's ruling if there is any evidence to support the ruling).