confrontation clause in South Carolina

2023See State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363, 371 , 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("This Court will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of cross-examination of a witness to test his or her credibility, or to show possible bias or self-interest in testifying, absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429-30 , 632 S.E.2d 845, 848 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); Gracely, 399 S.C. at 372 , 731 S.E.2d at 885 ("The Confrontation Clause guarant

2023See State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363, 371 , 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("This Court will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of cross-examination of a witness to test his or her credibility, or to show possible bias or self-interest in testifying, absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429-30 , 632 S.E.2d 845, 848 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); Gracely, 399 S.C. at 372 , 731 S.E.2d at 885 ("The Confrontation Clause guarant

2023See State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363, 371 , 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("This Court will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of cross-examination of a witness to test his or her credibility, or to show possible bias or self-interest in testifying, absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429-30 , 632 S.E.2d 845, 848 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); Gracely, 399 S.C. at 372 , 731 S.E.2d at 885 ("The Confrontation Clause guarant

2023See State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363, 371 , 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("This Court will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of cross-examination of a witness to test his or her credibility, or to show possible bias or self-interest in testifying, absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429-30 , 632 S.E.2d 845, 848 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); Gracely, 399 S.C. at 372 , 731 S.E.2d at 885 ("The Confrontation Clause guarant

2026Based on the South Carolina Supreme Court’s holding in State v. McDonald, we agree that admission of the confession was error. 412 S.C. 133, 141 , 771 S.E.2d 840, 844 (2015) (finding the redaction of a non-testifying codefendant's confession replacing the defendant's name for the term "another person" and "he" violated the defendant's confrontation clause rights because "the jury was left with the inescapable conclusion that [the non-testifying codefendant's] confession referred to [the Defendant] . . .").

2026Based on the South Carolina Supreme Court’s holding in State v. McDonald, we agree that admission of the confession was error. 412 S.C. 133, 141 , 771 S.E.2d 840, 844 (2015) (finding the redaction of a non-testifying codefendant's confession replacing the defendant's name for the term "another person" and "he" violated the defendant's confrontation clause rights because "the jury was left with the inescapable conclusion that [the non-testifying codefendant's] confession referred to [the Defendant] . . .").

2023See State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363, 371 , 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("This Court will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of cross-examination of a witness to test his or her credibility, or to show possible bias or self-interest in testifying, absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429-30 , 632 S.E.2d 845, 848 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); Gracely, 399 S.C. at 372 , 731 S.E.2d at 885 ("The Confrontation Clause guarant

2023See State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363, 371 , 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("This Court will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of cross-examination of a witness to test his or her credibility, or to show possible bias or self-interest in testifying, absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429-30 , 632 S.E.2d 845, 848 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); Gracely, 399 S.C. at 372 , 731 S.E.2d at 885 ("The Confrontation Clause guarant

2021"A defendant demonstrates a Confrontation Clause violation when he is prohibited from 'engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias . . . from which jurors . . . could draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.'" State v. Clark, 315 S.C. 478, 481 , 445 S.E.2d 633, 634 (1994) (alterations in original) (quoting Van Arsdall, 475 at 680).

2021"A defendant demonstrates a Confrontation Clause violation when he is prohibited from 'engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias . . . from which jurors . . . could draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.'" State v. Clark, 315 S.C. 478, 481 , 445 S.E.2d 633, 634 (1994) (alterations in original) (quoting Van Arsdall, 475 at 680).

2018See State v. Henson , 407 S.C. 154 , 754 S.E.2d 508 (2014) (ordering a new trial after finding the Confrontation Clause violation was not harmless error).

2018See State v. Henson , 407 S.C. 154 , 754 S.E.2d 508 (2014) (ordering a new trial after finding the Confrontation Clause violation was not harmless error).

2019In McDonald, we noted, "there are some contexts in which the risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot be ignored." Id. (quoting Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 135 (1968)).

2019In McDonald, we noted, "there are some contexts in which the risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot be ignored." Id. (quoting Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 135 (1968)).

1997"Roberts stands for the proposition that unavailability analysis is a necessary part of the Confrontation Clause inquiry only when the challenged out-of-court statements were made in the course of a prior judicial proceeding.” White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 354 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 741 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848, 858 (1992) (statements fell under excited utterance and course of medical care exceptions to hearsay) (emphasis added).

1997"Roberts stands for the proposition that unavailability analysis is a necessary part of the Confrontation Clause inquiry only when the challenged out-of-court statements were made in the course of a prior judicial proceeding.” White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 354 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 741 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848, 858 (1992) (statements fell under excited utterance and course of medical care exceptions to hearsay) (emphasis added).

2025See State v. Brewer, 438 S.C. 37 , 44, 882 S.E.2d 156 , 160 (2022) ("[W]hether a statement is testimonial and therefore subject to the confrontation clause is a question of law reviewed de novo."); State v. Brockmeyer, 406 S.C. 324, 342 , 751 S.E.2d 645, 654 (2013) ("Under the primary purpose analysis required by the Confrontation Clause, where the primary purpose of an out-of-court statement is to serve as evidence or 'an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony,' the statement is considered testimonial." (quoting Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 671-72 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concur

2013Indeed, the Confrontation Clause “applies to ‘witnesses’ against the accused — in other words, those who ‘bear testimony.’ ” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citing 2 N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828)); see Michigan v. Bryant, — U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1153 , 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (“We therefore limited the Confrontation Clause’s reach to testimonial statements .... ”).

2015As to the Confrontation Clause issue: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]."); State v. Atieh, 397 S.C. 641, 646 , 725 S.E.2d 730, 733 (Ct. App. 2012) ("A ruling in limine is not final; unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling procured, the issue is not preserved for review."). 2.

2015As to the Confrontation Clause issue: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]."); State v. Atieh, 397 S.C. 641, 646 , 725 S.E.2d 730, 733 (Ct. App. 2012) ("A ruling in limine is not final; unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling procured, the issue is not preserved for review."). 2.

2020See State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363, 371 , 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("This [c]ourt will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of cross-examination . . . absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State v. Dickerson, 395 S.C. 101, 117 , 716 S.E.2d 895, 904 (2011) (finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding proffered testimony that did not reveal evidence of bias or motive to lie); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 450 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 71 (Ct. App. 2004), aff'd as modified, 373 S.C. 601 , 646 S.E.2d 872 (2007) ("The appropriate question under a Confrontatio

2020See State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363, 371 , 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("This [c]ourt will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of cross-examination . . . absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State v. Dickerson, 395 S.C. 101, 117 , 716 S.E.2d 895, 904 (2011) (finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding proffered testimony that did not reveal evidence of bias or motive to lie); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 450 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 71 (Ct. App. 2004), aff'd as modified, 373 S.C. 601 , 646 S.E.2d 872 (2007) ("The appropriate question under a Confrontatio

2009State v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 330 , 563 S.E.2d 315, 317 (2002); Starnes v. State, 307 S.C. 247, 249 , 414 S.E.2d 582, 583 (1991).

2009State v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 330 , 563 S.E.2d 315, 317 (2002); Starnes v. State, 307 S.C. 247, 249 , 414 S.E.2d 582, 583 (1991).

1999White v. Illinois , 502 U.S. 346, 353-56 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 741-42 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848, 857 (1992); see also United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387 , 106 S.Ct. 1121 , 89 L.Ed.2d 390 (1986) (Confrontation Clause does not require showing of unavailability as condition to admission of out-of-court statement of nontestifying co-conspirator that is admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence); State v. Hutto, 325 S.C. 221 , 226 n. 7, 481 S.E.2d 432 , 434 n. 7 (1997) (recognizing the clarification).

1999White v. Illinois , 502 U.S. 346, 353-56 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 741-42 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848, 857 (1992); see also United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387 , 106 S.Ct. 1121 , 89 L.Ed.2d 390 (1986) (Confrontation Clause does not require showing of unavailability as condition to admission of out-of-court statement of nontestifying co-conspirator that is admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence); State v. Hutto, 325 S.C. 221 , 226 n. 7, 481 S.E.2d 432 , 434 n. 7 (1997) (recognizing the clarification).

2006The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that: (1) the statements made by Hill were non-testimonial in nature, and therefore, pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), there was no Confrontation Clause violation; (2) the statements fit within the excited utterance exception of the hearsay rule; and (3) even if erroneously admitted, any error was harmless.

2006The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that: (1) the statements made by Hill were non-testimonial in nature, and therefore, pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), there was no Confrontation Clause violation; (2) the statements fit within the excited utterance exception of the hearsay rule; and (3) even if erroneously admitted, any error was harmless.

2021See State v. McDonald, 412 S.C. 133, 140 , 771 S.E.2d 840, 843 (2015) ("The [Richardson] Court held that there was no Confrontation Clause violation 'by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession with a proper limiting instruction' when 'the confession is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant's name, but any reference to his or her existence.'" (quoting Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987))).

2015The Court held that there was no Confrontation Clause violation “by the admission of a nontestifying codefen-dant’s confession with a proper limiting instruction” when “the confession is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant’s name, but any reference to his or her existence.” Id. at 211 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 .

2020See State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363, 371 , 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("This [c]ourt will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of cross-examination . . . absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State v. Dickerson, 395 S.C. 101, 117 , 716 S.E.2d 895, 904 (2011) (finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding proffered testimony that did not reveal evidence of bias or motive to lie); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 450 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 71 (Ct. App. 2004), aff'd as modified, 373 S.C. 601 , 646 S.E.2d 872 (2007) ("The appropriate question under a Confrontatio

2020See State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363, 371 , 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("This [c]ourt will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of cross-examination . . . absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State v. Dickerson, 395 S.C. 101, 117 , 716 S.E.2d 895, 904 (2011) (finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding proffered testimony that did not reveal evidence of bias or motive to lie); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 450 , 602 S.E.2d 62, 71 (Ct. App. 2004), aff'd as modified, 373 S.C. 601 , 646 S.E.2d 872 (2007) ("The appropriate question under a Confrontatio

2018VI (stating "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him"); Delaware v. Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673 , 680, 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) *554 (providing a defendant demonstrates a Confrontation Clause violation when he is prohibited from "engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness ... 'from which jurors ... could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness' " (quoting Davis v. Alaska , 415 U.S. 308 , 318,

2018VI (stating "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him"); Delaware v. Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673 , 680, 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) *554 (providing a defendant demonstrates a Confrontation Clause violation when he is prohibited from "engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness ... 'from which jurors ... could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness' " (quoting Davis v. Alaska , 415 U.S. 308 , 318,

2009Thus, “the appropriate question under the confrontation clause is whether there has been any interference with the defendant’s opportunity for effective cross-examination at trial.” Starnes, 307 S.C. at 250 , 414 S.E.2d at 584 . “[Tjhere has traditionally been an exception to the confrontation requirement where a witness is unavailable and has given testimony at previous judicial proceedings against the same defendant which was subject to cross-examination by that defendant.” Barber, 390 U.S. at 722 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 . “[A] witness is not ‘unavailable’ for purposes of the foregoing exception to

2009Thus, “the appropriate question under the confrontation clause is whether there has been any interference with the defendant’s opportunity for effective cross-examination at trial.” Starnes, 307 S.C. at 250 , 414 S.E.2d at 584 . “[Tjhere has traditionally been an exception to the confrontation requirement where a witness is unavailable and has given testimony at previous judicial proceedings against the same defendant which was subject to cross-examination by that defendant.” Barber, 390 U.S. at 722 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 . “[A] witness is not ‘unavailable’ for purposes of the foregoing exception to

2026We also agree that there was no resulting prejudice from the introduction of Mitchell's confession. 1 1 Neither party to this appeal addressed the relevance of the recent United States Supreme Court decision regarding the redaction of a non-testifying codefendant's confession using the term "other person." Samia v. United States, 599 U.S. 635 , 640 (2023) (finding a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated "where (1) the confession has been modified to avoid directly identifying the See State v. Harris, 382 S.C. 107, 117 , 674 S.E.2d 532, 537 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The decision to

2026We also agree that there was no resulting prejudice from the introduction of Mitchell's confession. 1 1 Neither party to this appeal addressed the relevance of the recent United States Supreme Court decision regarding the redaction of a non-testifying codefendant's confession using the term "other person." Samia v. United States, 599 U.S. 635 , 640 (2023) (finding a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated "where (1) the confession has been modified to avoid directly identifying the See State v. Harris, 382 S.C. 107, 117 , 674 S.E.2d 532, 537 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The decision to

2025See State v. Brewer, 438 S.C. 37 , 44, 882 S.E.2d 156 , 160 (2022) ("[W]hether a statement is testimonial and therefore subject to the confrontation clause is a question of law reviewed de novo."); State v. Brockmeyer, 406 S.C. 324, 342 , 751 S.E.2d 645, 654 (2013) ("Under the primary purpose analysis required by the Confrontation Clause, where the primary purpose of an out-of-court statement is to serve as evidence or 'an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony,' the statement is considered testimonial." (quoting Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 671-72 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concur

2025See Brewer, 438 S.C. at 44, 882 S.E.2d at 160 ("[W]hether a statement is testimonial and therefore subject to the confrontation clause is a question of law reviewed de novo."); Davis, 547 U.S. at 822 ("Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.").

2025See State v. Brewer, 438 S.C. 37 , 44, 882 S.E.2d 156 , 160 (2022) ("[W]hether a statement is testimonial and therefore subject to the confrontation clause is a question of law reviewed de novo."); State v. Brockmeyer, 406 S.C. 324, 342 , 751 S.E.2d 645, 654 (2013) ("Under the primary purpose analysis required by the Confrontation Clause, where the primary purpose of an out-of-court statement is to serve as evidence or 'an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony,' the statement is considered testimonial." (quoting Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 671-72 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concur

2025See State v. Brewer, 438 S.C. 37 , 44, 882 S.E.2d 156 , 160 (2022) ("[W]hether a statement is testimonial and therefore subject to the confrontation clause is a question of law reviewed de novo."); State v. Brockmeyer, 406 S.C. 324, 342 , 751 S.E.2d 645, 654 (2013) ("Under the primary purpose analysis required by the Confrontation Clause, where the primary purpose of an out-of-court statement is to serve as evidence or 'an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony,' the statement is considered testimonial." (quoting Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 671-72 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concur

2025See State v. Brewer, 438 S.C. 37 , 44, 882 S.E.2d 156 , 160 (2022) ("[W]hether a statement is testimonial and therefore subject to the confrontation clause is a question of law reviewed de novo."); State v. Brockmeyer, 406 S.C. 324, 342 , 751 S.E.2d 645, 654 (2013) ("Under the primary purpose analysis required by the Confrontation Clause, where the primary purpose of an out-of-court statement is to serve as evidence or 'an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony,' the statement is considered testimonial." (quoting Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 671-72 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concur

2023See State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363, 371 , 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("This Court will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of cross-examination of a witness to test his or her credibility, or to show possible bias or self-interest in testifying, absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429-30 , 632 S.E.2d 845, 848 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); Gracely, 399 S.C. at 372 , 731 S.E.2d at 885 ("The Confrontation Clause guarant

2023See State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363, 371 , 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("This Court will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of cross-examination of a witness to test his or her credibility, or to show possible bias or self-interest in testifying, absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429-30 , 632 S.E.2d 845, 848 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); Gracely, 399 S.C. at 372 , 731 S.E.2d at 885 ("The Confrontation Clause guarant

2023See State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363, 371 , 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("This Court will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of cross-examination of a witness to test his or her credibility, or to show possible bias or self-interest in testifying, absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429-30 , 632 S.E.2d 845, 848 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); Gracely, 399 S.C. at 372 , 731 S.E.2d at 885 ("The Confrontation Clause guarant

2023See State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363, 371 , 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("This Court will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of cross-examination of a witness to test his or her credibility, or to show possible bias or self-interest in testifying, absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429-30 , 632 S.E.2d 845, 848 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); Gracely, 399 S.C. at 372 , 731 S.E.2d at 885 ("The Confrontation Clause guarant

2022"This Court does not re-evaluate the facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence but simply determines whether the trial judge's ruling is supported by any evidence." State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 6 , 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001).1 Additionally, whether a statement is testimonial and therefore subject to the confrontation clause is a question of law reviewed de novo.

2022"This Court does not re-evaluate the facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence but simply determines whether the trial judge's ruling is supported by any evidence." State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 6 , 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001).1 Additionally, whether a statement is testimonial and therefore subject to the confrontation clause is a question of law reviewed de novo.

2022See United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 255 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting an alleged confrontation clause issue presents a question of law). 1 Throughout this appeal, the parties have analyzed the standard of review under the abuse of discretion standard, and the court of appeals did too based on our jurisprudence.

2022See United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 255 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting an alleged confrontation clause issue presents a question of law). 1 Throughout this appeal, the parties have analyzed the standard of review under the abuse of discretion standard, and the court of appeals did too based on our jurisprudence.

2021Rather, Rivers only argued the witness was "not an expert in the actual testing of GSR kits." Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve it, but it must be clear that the argument has been presented on that ground."); State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786, 789 (1981) ("Failure to contemporaneously object to the question now advanced as prejudicial cannot be later bootstrapped by a motion for a mistr

2021Rather, Rivers only argued the witness was "not an expert in the actual testing of GSR kits." Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve it, but it must be clear that the argument has been presented on that ground."); State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222 , 226, 284 S.E.2d 786, 789 (1981) ("Failure to contemporaneously object to the question now advanced as prejudicial cannot be later bootstrapped by a motion for a mistr