Opinion ID: 1303926
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Choking Evidence

Text: Hoffman asserts that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that he had abused his girlfriend on a prior occasion. During the State's case in chief, the State offered the testimony of John Hill. The father of Hoffman's girlfriend, Mr. Hill testified without objection that the weekend prior to the murders, he had gone to Horry County to pick up his daughter because, Brian Hoffman had gotten drunk, and he had tried to choke her, and he had locked them out of the apartment. ROA p. 190. On re-cross examination, defense counsel asked, [t]he weekend before he choked her, were you present? ROA p. 190. Hoffman's own confession referred to a big fight with his girlfriend. The initial evidence of choking came into the trial completely without objection. Hoffman only objected to one question asked of his girlfriend. The solicitor on cross examination asked the following: [a]lright, and tell us about his temper during the time that he would drink alcohol, how he would react to you, and not only to you but to your children? ROA p. 608. Defense counsel objected, and the trial judge overruled the objection. The girlfriend's response to subsequent questions told of the choking incident and an incident where the child may have been abused. The testimony was inferential at best, and defense counsel did not object to either the question or her answer. The issue which is not properly preserved cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Vanderbilt, 287 S.C. 597, 340 S.E.2d 543 (1986). A contemporaneous objection is required to properly preserve an error for appellate review. State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 406 S.E.2d 315 (1991). Here, the record shows that no such preservation occurred. Defense counsel's lone objection was well after the initial admission of the choking incident. The defense objection was very broadly made, and not contemporaneous to the answers which Hoffman submits as error. Moreover, in challenging the credibility of the admitted confession, the defense strategy was to impute Hoffman's problems to his alcohol use and his inability to control his alcohol-induced behavior. We decline to find error on the part of the trial judge in admitting this evidence.