State v. Posey

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.

Antonio Kenyardo Posey, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-000500

Appeal From Saluda County
Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-363
Submitted October 1, 2019 – Filed November 13, 2019

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch,
Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard,
III, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Harry, 321 S.C. 273, 280, 468 S.E.2d 76, 80-81 (Ct. App.
1996) ("If the judge [provides a curative instruction], and the initial objecting party
is not satisfied with the instruction, a further objection and a request for further
instruction should be made at that time."); 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 judge's ruling and does not contemporaneously make an
additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a
mistrial.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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