State v. Johnson

THIS OPINION
HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN
ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Brad R.
Johnson, Appellant.

Appeal From Horry County

 J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-138

Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed
February 22, 2010

AFFIRMED

Stuart Mark Axelrod, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor John Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Brad J. Johnson was charged with
trespassing onto Lewis W. Hall's property. A jury found him guilty, and the
trial court sentenced Johnson to either thirty days' imprisonment or a $425
fine.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR,
and the following authorities: 

1.  As
to whether the trial court erred in denying Johnson's motion for a directed
verdict: S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-600 (2003) (stating entry on another's property
after notice prohibiting entry is a misdemeanor); State v. Weston, 367
S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) ("When
ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with
the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight.").

2.  As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit the
prior inconsistent statement because it was not relevant:  State v. Fossick, 333 S.C. 66, 70, 508 S.E.2d 32, 34 (1998) ("In determining harmless error regarding any issue of witness
credibility, we will consider the importance of the witness's testimony to the
prosecution's case, whether the witness's testimony was cumulative, whether
other evidence corroborates or contradicts the witness's testimony, the extent
of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the
State's case.").

3.  As to whether the trial court erred in denying the admission
of the jury charge on prior inconsistent statements:  Brown v. Stewart, 348 S.C. 33, 53, 557 S.E.2d 676, 686 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding a jury
charge must be not only erroneous, but also prejudicial, in order to entitle an
appellant to reversal); Id. ("It is not error to refuse a request
to charge when the substance of the request is included in the general
instructions."). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ.,
concur. 

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.