day Jaquan died and did not show any remorse. Perry objected to these statements only on the basis of relevance. This objection would not encompass the argument that the admission of such evidence amounted to a deprivation of due process. Rule 402 of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence provides in pertinent part that “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, statutes, these rules, or by other rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of South Carolina.” Under the clear language of this rule, the exclusion of evidence on a constitutional ground is an exception to the principle that relevant evidence must be admitted. Here, the trial court, in overruling Perry’s o (1987) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Payne v. State, 355 S.C. 642, 645, 586
holding that criticism of the defendants failure to express remorse penalized his assertion of fifth amendment rights holding that the prosecutors reference to the nonexistence of mitigating evidence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify holding the states reference to the defendants lack of remorse was error because it was a comment on the defendants assertion of his constitutional rights to plead not guilty and require the state to carry its burden of proof holding that if comment is fairly susceptible of being construed by the jury as a comment on the defendants exercise of his or her right to remain silent it violates the defendants state constitutional right to silence whether comment was introduced in states caseinchief or for impeachment purposes holding that the state may not impeach a defendant with his postarrest or postmiranda silence