State v. Thompson

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.

James Walter Thompson, IV, Appellant.

Appellate Case No.
2009-135606

Appeal From Pickens County

G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-336

Heard May 8, 2012 – Filed May 30, 2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate
Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney
General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General
William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia, and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of
Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
James Thompson seeks reversal of his convictions based on the trial court's
allegedly incomplete jury charges.  At oral argument, Thompson conceded that,
at trial, he "did not offer the charge as we are discussing it here
today."  When asked by the court how the objection to the charge was
preserved, Thompson acknowledged preservation "is a difficult
question."  We find the issue unpreserved and affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 20, SCRCrimP (Any
objection to a jury charge "shall state distinctly the matter
objected to and the grounds for objection.  Failure to object in accordance
with this rule shall constitute a waiver of objection." (emphasis added)); State v. Morris, 307 S.C. 480, 486, 415 S.E.2d 819, 823 (Ct. App.
1991) (finding defendant's appellate objection to curative jury charge
unpreserved because "[n]o 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").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.