State v. Strock

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.

Douglas Malcolm
Strock, Appellant.

Appeal From Clarendon County

Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-042

Submitted January 4, 2011 – Filed February
1, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Scott Lamar Robinson, of Manning, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Cecil Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Douglas
Malcolm Strock appeals his conviction for criminal domestic violence of a high
and aggravated nature (CDVHAN), arguing the trial court erred in: (1) allowing a
voicemail message to be played to the jury, (2) denying Strock's motion for a
directed verdict, (3) allowing the victim to offer testimony regarding her
state of mind and appearance following the assault, (4) allowing the victim and
other witnesses to offer testimony regarding the victim's injuries, and (5) failing
to grant a mistrial.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR and the following authorities:

1. As
to whether the trial court erred in allowing the voicemail message to be played
to the jury:  Rule 403, SCRE ("Although
relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or
needless presentation of cumulative evidence."); Rule 901(a), SCRE
("[A] condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its
proponent claims."); State v. Landon, 370 S.C. 103, 108, 634 S.E.2d
660, 663 (2006) (noting a violation of the rule governing disclosure of
evidence in criminal cases is not reversible unless prejudice is shown).   

2. As
to whether the trial court erred in denying
Strock's motion for a directed verdict:  State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279,
292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) (stating when ruling on a motion for a directed
verdict, the trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of
evidence, not its weight).

 3. As to all
remaining issues:  State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d
691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for
appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial
judge. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be
considered on appeal.").

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS,
PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

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