State v. Duvall

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.

Garvin Duvall, Appellant

Appeal From Anderson County

J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-132

Heard February 16, 2012 – Filed February
29, 2012   

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald
J. Zelenka, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Garvin Duvall appeals his convictions for murder, conspiracy, and
possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.  Duvall
argues that statements of the decedent regarding his belief that Duvall's
co-defendant was planning to shoot him or set his car on fire constituted inadmissible
hearsay.  Duvall also argues these statements were unfairly prejudicial and
their prejudicial effect substantially outweighed their probative value. 
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State
v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510, 476 S.E.2d 903, 912 (1996) (holding that an issue is not preserved for review if the objecting party
accepts the judge's ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional
objection to the sufficiency of the curative instruction or move for a
mistrial); State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579, 583, 698 S.E.2d 862, 864 (Ct.
App. 2010) (holding that the law assumes
a curative instruction will remedy an error and failure to object to the
sufficiency of the charge renders the issue waived and unpreserved for
appellate review); State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445, 639 S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct. App. 2006) ("Because a trial court's curative instruction
is considered to cure any error regarding improper testimony, a party must
contemporaneously object to a curative instruction as insufficient or move for
a mistrial to preserve an issue for review." (quoting State v. Patterson, 337 S.C.
215, 226, 522 S.E.2d 845, 850 (Ct. App. 1999))).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., PIEPER and GEATHERS, JJ.,
concur.