State v. Laureano

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.

William Laureano, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-210566

Appeal From Anderson County
R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-487
Submitted December 1, 2013 – Filed December 23, 2013

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94
(2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must
have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]. Issues not raised and
ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal."); 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."); id.
("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.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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