Background
Antonio Long was convicted in Horry County of voluntary manslaughter, first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC), and kidnapping, and received consecutive thirty-year sentences for each offense. The charges arose from a connected series of events: according to testimony at trial, Long touched Haywood’s minor child inappropriately; the child told Kevonta Hills what had happened; Hills confronted Long; Long shot both Hills and Haywood; and Long then sexually assaulted the child at gunpoint and forced her to accompany him to North Carolina. On appeal, Long raised two issues. First, he argued the trial court abused its discretion by admitting crime scene photographs of the victims’ faces (State’s Exhibits 18 and 22) under Rule 403, SCRE. Second, he argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever the murder charges from the CSC and kidnapping charges.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed on both issues under Rule 220(b), SCACR.
Photograph objection waived. The court held Long’s Rule 403 objection to Exhibits 18 and 22 was not preserved for appellate review because Long consented to their admission at trial. The day before the photographs were formally offered, Long objected when the State discussed using them in connection with a crime scene investigator’s upcoming testimony. But when the State actually moved to introduce and publish the photographs to the jury, the State represented that Long had consented to their admission—and Long’s counsel did not object. Later, when the trial court asked Long whether he had any objections to the State’s exhibits, Long’s counsel stated his only objection was to Exhibit 22. Under South Carolina law, when a party states no objection to the introduction of evidence—even after having previously moved to exclude it—the issue raised in the previous motion is not preserved for appeal. Burke v. AnMed Health, 393 S.C. 48, 55 (Ct. App. 2011). The affirmative consent to admission constituted a waiver of the earlier objection.
Severance properly denied. The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating the murder charges with the CSC and kidnapping charges for trial. Under South Carolina law, charges may be tried together when they: (1) arise out of a single chain of circumstances; (2) are proved by the same evidence; (3) are of the same general nature; and (4) no real right of the defendant is prejudiced. State v. Tucker, 324 S.C. 155, 164 (1996).
All four elements were satisfied. The offenses arose from a single unbroken chain of events: Long’s initial inappropriate contact with the child precipitated Hills’s confrontation, the shootings, and the subsequent sexual assault and kidnapping. The same evidence—DNA, firearm evidence, crime scene evidence, and the child victim’s testimony (as both the primary CSC/kidnapping victim and the principal eyewitness to the shootings)—was relevant to all charges. The offenses were interconnected and part of the same criminal episode, satisfying the same-general-nature element. And Long showed no prejudice: the sexual assault and kidnapping evidence was necessary to fully explain the murder charges, because the State’s theory was that Long’s inappropriate conduct toward the child was the precipitating cause of the confrontation that led to the shootings.
Key Takeaways
- An in limine motion or a pre-admission objection does not preserve an evidentiary issue for appellate review; a contemporaneous objection at the time the evidence is actually offered is required, and if defense counsel affirmatively states no objection at that moment—even after earlier objecting—the issue is waived.
- Multiple criminal charges arising from a single continuous criminal episode may be consolidated for trial when the same evidence proves all charges, the offenses are of the same general nature, and no specific trial right of the defendant is prejudiced by joinder.
- Where an eyewitness to a murder is also the victim of related offenses committed by the same defendant during the same episode, it is generally not prejudicial to the defendant to try those charges together, because the same witness’s testimony is necessary to fully present the State’s theory of the case.
Why It Matters
Long underscores two recurring preservation traps in criminal litigation. First, it illustrates the limited value of pre-trial motions in limine: because a motion in limine alone does not preserve an objection, defense counsel must renew the objection when the evidence is actually offered. And affirmatively consenting to admission at that moment—whether to avoid drawing the jury’s attention, as a strategic concession, or through oversight—forecloses appellate review entirely.
Second, on the severance issue, the case illustrates when the “same general nature” and “single chain of circumstances” factors favor consolidation in cases involving multiple discrete criminal acts by the same defendant. The crucial factor here was that a single witness—the minor victim—was necessary to establish both the murder motive (her disclosure to Hills triggered the confrontation) and the CSC and kidnapping charges. When the same witness’s testimony is essential to multiple charges and all charges stem from the same criminal encounter, severance is unlikely to be granted and even less likely to be granted on appeal.