State v. Buckson

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.

Jerome Curtis
Buckson, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

 J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-282

Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 20, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Appellate
Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney
General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General
Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of
Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jerome Curtis Buckson appeals his conviction for
first-degree burglary, arguing the trial court:  (1) erred in denying his
motion for a directed verdict, and (2) abused its discretion in denying his
motion for a mistrial when hearsay previously ruled inadmissible was admitted
into evidence.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court
erred in denying his motion for a
directed verdict: State v. Crawford, 362 S.C. 627, 633, 608 S.E.2d 886,
889 (Ct. App. 2005) ("On appeal from the denial of a directed verdict in a
criminal case, an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the State.  When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the
trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not
its weight.  If there is any direct evidence or substantial circumstantial
evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, this [c]ourt
must find the case was properly submitted to the jury.") (internal
citations omitted).

2. As to whether the trial court abused
its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial when hearsay previously
ruled inadmissible was admitted into evidence: State
v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445, 639
S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct. App. 2006) ("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.") (quotations and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS,
JJ., concur.

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