State v. King, 2018-UP-195

King was convicted of murder and possession of a weapon during a violent crime and sentenced to life imprisonment.
On appeal, King argued the trial court erred by admitting two instances of hearsay testimony at trial.
First contested testimony: Deputy Suber related an out-of-court statement (challenged as hearsay) offered by the State; the trial court admitted it under the excited utterance exception.
Second contested testimony: Investigator Peeples testified in a manner King claims was inadmissible hearsay; the State contends the issue was not preserved for appeal.
The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the excited utterance exception applied and whether the Peeples issue was preserved, ultimately affirming the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Deputy Suber’s testimony (hearsay)	Testimony was admissible as an excited utterance relating to a startling event	Admission was erroneous hearsay	Court upheld admission; applied excited utterance framework and deferred to trial court discretion
Admissibility of Investigator Peeples’s testimony (hearsay/preservation)	Admission was erroneous hearsay	Issue not preserved at trial; cannot raise new ground on appeal	Court refused to consider the argument on appeal for lack of preservation

State v. Ladner, 373 S.C. 103 (2007) (explains hearsay rule and excited utterance exception)
State v. Sims, 348 S.C. 16 (2002) (rationale and factors for excited utterance exception)
State v. Stahlnecker, 386 S.C. 609 (2010) (elements and trial-court discretion for excited utterance)
State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138 (2003) (preservation requirement for appellate review)