State v. Jamul Ratub El

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Jamul Ratub El, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-579

Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October
15, 2008

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellant Defender, Joseph L. Savitz, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,  Assistant
Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett,
of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jamul Ratub El appeals his conviction for cocaine trafficking, arguing
the trial court committed reversible error in denying his motion for a mistrial. 
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v.
George, 323 S.C. 496, 510, 476 S.E.2d 903, 912 (1996) (“No issue is
preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the [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.
Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 226, 522 S.E.2d 845, 850 (Ct. App. 1999) (“[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.”) (emphasis in original); State v. Johnson, 334 S.C. 78, 89-90,
512 S.E.2d 795, 801 (1999) (holding unless the accused is prejudiced, a curative
instruction to disregard objectionable evidence is usually deemed to cure the
error and admission of inadmissible testimony can be harmless error where the
trial court properly admonished the jury to disregard the testimony); State
v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 444, 639 S.E.2d 160, 162 (Ct. App. 2006)
(recognizing a mistrial should only be granted in cases of manifest necessity
and with the greatest caution for very plain and obvious reasons and should not
be ordered in every case where incompetent evidence is received). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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