State v. Vanderbilt, No. 22474

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation287 S.C. 597,340 S.E.2d 543
Decision Date21 February 1986
Docket NumberNo. 22474
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Howard VANDERBILT, Appellant.

Page 543

340 S.E.2d 543
287 S.C. 597
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Howard VANDERBILT, Appellant.
No. 22474.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Submitted Oct. 28, 1985.
Decided Feb. 21, 1986.

John V. Esposito of Esposito & Esposito, Hilton Head Island, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Staff Atty. Norman Mark Rapoport, Columbia, and Sol. Randolph Murdaugh, Jr., Hampton, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

[287 S.C. 598] Appellant was found guilty of distributing one gram of cocaine to an undercover officer. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. We affirm.

Most of the issues raised by the appellant are not properly before this Court because no objections were made at trial.

Page 544

Even though no contemporaneous and proper objections were taken at trial, appellant argues that this Court should review his arguments as a "matter of grace." For this proposition, appellant relies on State v. Griffin, 129 S.C. 200, 124 S.E. 81 (1924). In Griffin, the Court stated that this Court is bound to take notice of any error apparent in the record by which the appellant has been deprived of any substantial means of enjoying a fair and impartial trial.

Numerous decisions of this Court have impliedly overruled Griffin. See State v. Newton, 274 S.C. 287, 262 S.E.2d 906 (1980); Miller v. State, 269 S.C. 113, 236 S.E.2d 422 (1977); State v. Sachs, 264 S.C. 541, 216 S.E.2d 501 (1975). The doctrine of in favorem vitae, which applies in death penalty cases, is the only exception to this rule. See generally State v. Adams, 279 S.C. 228, 306 S.E.2d 208 (1983); State v. Goolsby, 275 S.C. 110, 268 S.E.2d 31, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1037, 101 S.Ct. 616, 66 L.Ed.2d 500 (1980).

Issues not properly preserved at trial may not be raised for the first time on appeal. To the extent that State v. Griffin, supra, may be inconsistent with this result it is overruled.

The remaining exceptions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Jones v. State, No. DP-60
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 28, 1987
    ...its in favorem vitae doctrine. That doctrine is the state's only exception to the contemporaneous objection rule. State v. Vanderbilt, 287 S.C. 597, 340 S.E.2d 543, 544 (1986). See also State v. Adams, 279 S.C. 228, 306 S.E.2d 208, 215 (1983) ("we accept all argument in favorem vitae&q......
  • State v. Simmons, No. 4569.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 17, 2009
    ...referencing the robber as "the defendant" during her testimony. This issue is not preserved for our review. State v. Vanderbilt, 287 S.C. 597, 598, 340 S.E.2d 543, 544 (1986) (finding an issue which is not properly preserved cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). Simmons ......
  • State v. Watts, No. 2454
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 5, 1996
    ...312 S.C. 386, 440 S.E.2d 869 (1994); Varnadore v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 289 S.C. 155, 345 S.E.2d 711 (1986); State v. Vanderbilt, 287 S.C. 597, 340 S.E.2d 543 (1986). Thus, we only consider whether the variance between indictment and the State's proof entitled Watts to a directed In Sou......
  • Jackson v. Speed, No. 24639
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 1, 1997
    ...on appeal absent an abuse of discretion). This Court has consistently refused to apply the plain error rule. State v. Vanderbilt, 287 S.C. 597, 340 S.E.2d 543 (1986); Young v. Smith, 168 S.C. 362, 167 S.E. 669 (1933). Instead, it is the responsibility of trial counsel to preserve issues for......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • Jones v. State, No. DP-60
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 28, 1987
    ...its in favorem vitae doctrine. That doctrine is the state's only exception to the contemporaneous objection rule. State v. Vanderbilt, 287 S.C. 597, 340 S.E.2d 543, 544 (1986). See also State v. Adams, 279 S.C. 228, 306 S.E.2d 208, 215 (1983) ("we accept all argument in favorem vitae&q......
  • State v. Simmons, No. 4569.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 17, 2009
    ...referencing the robber as "the defendant" during her testimony. This issue is not preserved for our review. State v. Vanderbilt, 287 S.C. 597, 598, 340 S.E.2d 543, 544 (1986) (finding an issue which is not properly preserved cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). Simmons ......
  • State v. Watts, No. 2454
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 5, 1996
    ...312 S.C. 386, 440 S.E.2d 869 (1994); Varnadore v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 289 S.C. 155, 345 S.E.2d 711 (1986); State v. Vanderbilt, 287 S.C. 597, 340 S.E.2d 543 (1986). Thus, we only consider whether the variance between indictment and the State's proof entitled Watts to a directed In Sou......
  • Jackson v. Speed, No. 24639
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 1, 1997
    ...on appeal absent an abuse of discretion). This Court has consistently refused to apply the plain error rule. State v. Vanderbilt, 287 S.C. 597, 340 S.E.2d 543 (1986); Young v. Smith, 168 S.C. 362, 167 S.E. 669 (1933). Instead, it is the responsibility of trial counsel to preserve issues for......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT