Opinion ID: 2504948
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Petitioner's Objection was Timely and Specific

Text: Petitioner argues the motion to strike Crisco's hearsay testimony was timely and specific and therefore, preserved for review. We agree. For an objection to be preserved for appellate review, the objection must be made at the time the evidence is presented, State v. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 42, 479 S.E.2d 57, 60 (1996), and with sufficient specificity to inform the circuit court judge of the point being urged by the objector, Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998). When a witness answers a question before an objection is made, the objecting party must make a motion to strike the answer to preserve the issue of that statement's admissibility. See State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 129, 551 S.E.2d 240, 248 (2001) (finding a motion to strike was unnecessary because the objection to the hearsay testimony had been overruled). In this case, defense counsel motioned to strike Crisco's statement immediately after Crisco represented he was relying on a discovery motion to identify Petitioner. With the greatest respect for the learned opinion of the court of appeals, we do not understand the basis for its conclusion that counsel's motion to strike was not contemporaneously made. In upholding the circuit court's decision to deny Petitioner's motion to strike, the court of appeals quoted the proposition from State v. Rice, [u]nless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling made, the issue is not preserved for review. 375 S.C. 302, 322-23, 652 S.E.2d 409, 419 (App.2007). In that case, trial counsel motioned to strike certain testimony immediately after the witness made the alleged hearsay statement. Id. The court of appeals determined the objection was untimely by placing emphasis on the manner in which trial counsel raised issue with the statement: Trial counsel did not object when Officer Smith made the alleged hearsay statement. Instead, counsel made a motion to strike. . . . Here, trial counsel never actually made an objection, only a motion to strike. Id. In this case, the State argues because Petitioner's motion to strike was not preceded by an objection, there was no contemporaneous objection. The rationale behind the requirement of a contemporaneous objection is to enable[] trial judges to make reasoned decisions by appropriately developing issues by way of argument, both for or against any particular legal proposition. State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 67, 406 S.E.2d 315, 327 (1991). In our opinion, defense counsel's purpose would not have been made clearer had he used the word objection before making a motion to strike. Moreover, the South Carolina Rules of Evidence state that an error may not be found for the wrongful admission of evidence unless a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record. Rule 103(a)(1), SCRE (emphasis added). Under the Rules of Evidence, Petitioner clearly preserved the issue of admissibility by moving to strike the hearsay testimony. To the extent State v. Rice stands for the proposition that preservation of an error in admitting evidence can only be accomplished if trial counsel follows the precise procedure of making an objection followed by a motion to strike, we overrule that proposition. At oral argument, the State argued defense counsel's motion to strike was not timely because prior to Crisco making the statement at issue, he twice stated he was relying on other documents to recall the events of that evening. The two prior statements to which the State refers do not relate to the identification of Petitioner, which was crucial to Petitioner's guilt. Rather, those statements referred to the amount of the robbery proceeds Crisco gave Harris, and the time Crisco believed he robbed the bingo hall. This information was not the primary piece of evidence Petitioner was seeking to elicit from Crisco. Therefore, we do not accept the State's argument that Petitioner's failure to object to those statements renders Petitioner's motion to strike untimely. The first time Crisco made a hearsay statement that was prejudicial to Petitioner, defense counsel motioned to strike. For this reason, we find the objection was timely. Additionally, we find defense counsel's motion to strike Crisco's testimony was sufficiently specific to preserve the issue of admissibility for review. [1] For an admissibility error to be preserved, the objection must include a specific ground if the specific ground was not apparent from the context. Rule 103(a)(1), SCRE. When supported by context, [a] party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine . . ., but it must be clear the argument has been presented on that ground. State v. Stahlnecker, 386 S.C. 609, 617, 690 S.E.2d 565, 570 (2010). In this case, Crisco admitted on the stand he relied on a discovery motion for the identification of Petitioner. Defense counsel moved to strike all of Crisco's testimony about Petitioner on the ground that [h]e's been relying on the police report. The State analogized this case to State v. Rice where trial counsel made a motion to strike, stating [h]e's talking about what someone else did. 375 S.C. at 322, 652 S.E.2d at 419. The court of appeals in that case found the ground for objection was not apparent from the context because it appeared that trial counsel was concerned with whether the testifying officer's testimony was based on personal knowledge. Id. The determination of whether an objection is apparent from the context of witness examination is factually driven. Therefore, we do not believe State v. Rice is a measuring stick for judging the specificity of the motion to strike in this case. Although defense counsel did not state his ground for objection as hearsay, we believe it was apparent from the context of the cross-examination that defense counsel was objecting to the hearsay nature of Crisco's statement under Rule 802, SCRE. Thus, we conclude Petitioner's motion to strike Crisco's testimony was preserved for our review because it was both timely and specific. Accordingly, the circuit court's denial of Petitioner's motion to strike was error under Rule 801(c), SCRE (`Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.).