State v. Holder

CourtListener 10150170ScctappJun 7, 2017

Full text

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.

Jonathan M. Holder, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001185

Appeal From Pickens County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-239
Submitted May 1, 2017 – Filed June 7, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Megan Harrigan Jameson, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of
Greenville, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Rogers, 361 S.C. 178, 183, 603 S.E.2d 910, 912-13 (Ct. App.
2004) (holding for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must be "(1)
raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, (2) raised by the appellant, (3) raised in
a timely manner, and (4) raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity"
(quoting Jean Hoefer Toal et al., Appellate Practice in South Carolina 57 (2d ed.
2002))); State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510, 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-12 (1996) ("If
the trial [court] sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a
curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured.");
id. ("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. Walker,
366 S.C. 643, 658, 623 S.E.2d 122, 130 (Ct. App. 2005) ("A curative instruction to
disregard incompetent evidence and not to consider it during deliberation is
deemed to have cured any alleged error in its admission.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., and LEE, A.J., concur.

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

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.