State v. Mack

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.

Joy Mack, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

J. C. "Buddy" Nicholson, Jr.,
Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-215 

Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed May 17, 2011

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A.
Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Joy Mack appeals his convictions for
kidnapping, assault and battery with intent to kill, and armed robbery, arguing
the trial court erred in the following: (1) allowing the victim to make an
in-court identification of Mack when the initial identification was unreliable
and (2) denying Mack's motion for a directed verdict when the evidence
presented at trial was insufficient to convict Mack.  We affirm.[1] 

1. A review
of the Record indicates Mack did not make a contemporaneous objection at trial and did not raise the issue of the victim's
in-court identification at any point during trial.  Accordingly, the issue is
not preserved for appellate review. See State
v. Johnson, 324 S.C. 38, 41, 476 S.E.2d 681, 682 (1996) (holding there
must be a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial [court] in order
to properly preserve an issue for appellate review). 

2. Viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence supports the trial
court's decision to deny Mack's motion for a directed verdict and submit the
case to the jury.  Through an in-court identification, the victim identified
Mack as the assailant who first entered the store holding a gun.  Because
the trial court is concerned "with the existence or nonexistence of
evidence, not its weight" when ruling on a directed verdict motion, we
hold the trial court properly denied the motion for a directed verdict.  See 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.").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, KONDUROS,
and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

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