State v. Shakoya A. Darby

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.

Shakoya Alexis Darby, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2022-001127

Appeal From Richland County
Robert E. Hood, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-370
Submitted October 23, 2025 – Filed November 5, 2025

AFFIRMED

Senior Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General Joshua Abraham Edwards, and
Solicitor Byron E. Gipson, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Shakoya Alexis Darby appeals her conviction and forty-year
sentence for homicide by child abuse. On appeal, Darby argues the trial court
erred by denying her motions for a mistrial after it sustained her objections to (1)
the solicitor's assertion during their closing that "the defense wants to say [the
government] want[s] to put smoke and mirrors up"; and (2) the State's forensic
pathologist's mention "of an alleged asphyxia type event" made during his
testimony which referenced additional information which was not timely provided
to the defense. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.
1. We hold this issue is not preserved for appellate review because Darby failed to
contemporaneously move for a mistrial following the trial court's curative
instruction for the jury to disregard the solicitor's "smoke and mirrors" comment.
See State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510, 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-912 (1996) ("If the
trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative
instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v.
Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 226, 522 S.E.2d 845, 850 (Ct. App. 1999) ("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."); Washington v.
State, 440 S.C. 550, 573, 891 S.E.2d 668, 680 (Ct. App. 2023) (concluding trial
counsel failed to contemporaneously move for a mistrial because he did not do so
until after the solicitor finished her closing argument and the trial court dismissed
the jury for a brief recess); State v. Black, 319 S.C. 515, 521-22, 462 S.E.2d 311,
315 (Ct. App. 1995) (holding a defendant failed to contemporaneously object to
the State's closing argument because although counsel objected and moved for a
mistrial during the argument, he waited until after the court's charge and the jury
began deliberations to state the basis for his objection and mistrial motion); State v.
Heller, 399 S.C. 157, 174, 731 S.E.2d 312, 321 (Ct. App. 2012) (holding the
defendant failed to contemporaneously move for a mistrial following the trial
court's curative instruction because the motion was not made until after the State
concluded its examination of the witness).

2. We hold this issue is not preserved for appellate review because Darby failed to
move for a mistrial after the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the
pathologist's testimony about the "asphyxia type event." See George, 323 S.C. at
510, 476 S.E.2d at 912 ("No issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting
party accepts the [trial court's] ruling and does not contemporaneously make an
additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a
mistrial."); State v. Brown, 389 S.C. 84, 95, 697 S.E.2d 622, 628 (Ct. App. 2010)
("If a trial court issues a curative instruction, a party must make a
contemporaneous objection to the sufficiency of the curative instruction to
preserve an alleged error for review."); State v. Williams, 386 S.C. 503, 522, 690
S.E.2d 62, 72 (2010) (Pleicones, J., concurring) ("Here, appellant did not renew or
reserve his mistrial motion after hearing the curative instruction . . . apparently
finding it sufficiently cured any prejudice from the solicitor's improper
questioning. Accordingly, there is no mistrial issue before the [c]ourt.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and VINSON and CURTIS, JJ., concur.

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