play the interview audio to impeach Chatfield’s testimony during cross-examination and did not allow him to question Chatfield about whether the tapes were altered from the original. Further, he asserts his cross-examination of Officer Scales was unduly limited by the court not allowing him to play the surveillance video for the jury. Finally, he argues the court’s refusal to make the transcript of the pre-trial hearing available to Mazique limited his ability to cross-examine Chatfield during the trial. Mazique fails to cite to any case law for these assertions; therefore, we find he has abandoned them. See Rule 208(b)(1)(D), SCACR (requiring citation to authority in the argument section of an appellant’s brief); State v. Lindsey, 394 S.C. 354, 363, 714 S.E.2d 554, 558 (Ct. App. 2011) (<HOLDING>). VII. Cross-Examination of Witness Mazique
holding that an issue is abandoned when not raised in an appellate brief holding that issues not raised in the initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned holding that issues not raised in an initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned holding an issue is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal if the argument is raised in a brief but not supported by authority holding that issues raised but not supported by argument are deemed abandoned