Opinion
No. COA08-781.
Filed 19 May 2009.
Wake County No. 07CRS60845.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 23 April 2008 by Judge Paul G. Gessner in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 April 2009.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by John R. Green, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State. Irving Joyner, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of trafficking in marijuana by possession. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting evidence which tended to show that defendant dropped a handgun just prior to his arrest.
Pre-trial, the trial court denied defendant's motion in limine "to prohibit the State from making any reference to any handgun related to" defendant's arrest. At trial, defendant only objected to evidence concerning the handgun during a recess before the State called its second witness, as follows:
[Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, I would just renew my objection to the introduction to — I just renew my objection to the introduction of the handgun at any point in time it's shown. I know you have ruled on it. I don't want to be heard any further.
THE COURT: Already been ruled on and it's on the record.
Defendant did not object to the evidence at the time the State referenced the handgun during its opening argument, at the times the State's second, third, and fourth witnesses testified about the handgun, or at the time the State moved to introduce the handgun into evidence.
"[A] motion in limine is not sufficient to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence if the defendant does not object to that evidence at the time it is offered at trial." State v. Grooms, 353 N.C. 50, 65-66, 540 S.E.2d 713, 723 (2000) (emphasis added) (citing State v. Hayes, 350 N.C. 79, 80, 511 S.E.2d 302, 303 (1999) (per curiam)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 838, 151 L. Ed. 2d 54 (2001); see N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1) (2009). Furthermore, "[e]ven if the trial court allows the party a standing objection, the party is not relieved of his obligation to make a contemporaneous objection." State v. Mays, 158 N.C. App. 563, 578, 582 S.E.2d 360, 370 (citing State v. Gray, 137 N.C. App. 345, 348, 528 S.E.2d 46, 48, disc. review denied, 352 N.C. 594, 544 S.E.2d 792 (2000)), disc. review denied, 357 N.C. 510, 588 S.E.2d 379 (2003).
Defendant has not preserved this issue for appellate review.
NO ERROR.
Judges CALABRIA and STEELMAN concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).