State v. Day

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.

John J. Day, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-211970

Appeal From Greenville County
Letitia H. Verdin, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-421
Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed November 20, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, both of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Johnson, 334 S.C. 78, 89, 512 S.E.2d 795, 801 (1999) (finding
issue relating to admission of improper testimony was preserved when defendant
renewed his request for a mistrial following curative instructions); State v. Wilson,
389 S.C. 579, 583, 698 S.E.2d 862, 864 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding that when an
objection is sustained, in order to create an appealable issue the objecting party
must move to cure or move for a mistrial if such a cure is insufficient); State v.
Brown, 389 S.C. 84, 95, 697 S.E.2d 622, 628 (Ct. App. 2010) (noting a curative
instruction is usually deemed to cure an alleged error); State v. Moyd, 321 S.C.
256, 263, 468 S.E.2d 7, 11 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding a mistrial need not be granted
in every case in which incompetent evidence is received and later stricken and a
curative instruction given).

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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