State v. Byers

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.

Najjar
De'Breece Byers, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-276

Submitted May 1, 2009 – Filed June 2, 2009  

AFFIRMED

Robert A. Muckenfuss, of Charlotte, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia, and Solicitor Kevin
Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Najjar De'Breece  Byers appeals his convictions for  armed robbery and criminal
conspiracy.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities.    

1.  As to whether the
trial court erred in denying his motion to strike a witness’s hearsay testimony: State v. Rice, 375 S.C. 302, 322-23, 652 S.E.2d 409, 419 (Ct. App. 2007)
("Unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a
final ruling made, the issue is not preserved for review."); Parr v.
Gaines, 309 S.C. 477, 481, 424 S.E.2d 515, 518 (Ct. App. 1992) ("In [the]
absence of a contemporaneous objection, a motion to strike may be denied.").

2.  As to whether the
trial court erred in denying Byers's motion for a directed verdict: State v. Cherry, 361 S.C. 588, 593, 606 S.E.2d
475, 478 (2004) (explaining a defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when
the State fails to produce evidence of the offense charged); State v. Harris,
351 S.C. 643, 653, 572 S.E.2d 267, 273 (2002) (stating if there is any direct
or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of
the accused, an appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to
the jury). 

3.  As to whether the
trial court erred instructing the jury on the legal principle "the hand of
one is the hand of all":  Rule
20(b), SCRCrimP, ("[T]he parties shall be given the opportunity to object
to the giving or failure to give an instruction before the jury retires . . .
.  Failure to object in accordance with this rule shall constitute a waiver of
objection."); State v. Whipple, 324 S.C. 43, 52, 476 S.E.2d 683,
688 (1996) (holding a party’s failure to object to the charge as given
constitutes a waiver of his right to complain on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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