Manley v. Fesperman

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

Evelyn Joyce
Manley, both individually and as Guardian ad Litem for Tiara M., a minor
under the age of eighteen, Natasha Manley, Howard Sampson, and Bryant Ward, Plaintiffs,

Of whom Evelyn
Joyce Manley is the Appellant,

v.

John Richard
Fesperman, Respondent.

Appeal From Horry County

Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-013

Submitted January 3, 2012 – Filed January
25, 2012

AFFIRMED

Daniel A. Hunnicutt, of Conway, for
Appellant.

Terra M. Futch, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Evelyn Joyce Manley appeals the jury's verdict
awarding her $977 for actual damages arising out of a car accident with John
Richard Fesperman.  On appeal, Manley argues the trial court erred in admitting
prejudicial statements concerning Manley's previous lawsuits, her retention of
a lawyer, and visits to a chiropractor, and in denying her motion for 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 testimony concerning
Manley's previous lawsuits:  State v. Patterson, 324 S.C. 5, 18,
482 S.E.2d 760, 766 (1997) (finding an issue is not preserved for review when
the appellant failed to move to strike or request a curative instruction after
the trial court sustained an objection in his favor); State v. Moyd, 321
S.C. 256, 263, 468 S.E.2d 7, 11 (Ct. App. 1996) ("[I]f the objecting
party accepts the ruling of the trial [court] and does not contemporaneously
object to the sufficiency of a curative instruction or move for mistrial, the
error is deemed cured, and the issue is not preserved for appeal."
(citation omitted)).   

2.  As to whether the trial court
erred in allowing testimony regarding Manley's retention of a lawyer and visits
to her chiropractor:  Rule 402, SCRE (providing relevant evidence is generally admissible);
Rule 401, SCRE ("'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to
make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of
the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence."); Fields v. Reg'l Med. Ctr. Orangeburg,
363 S.C. 19, 25-26, 609 S.E.2d 506, 509 (2005) ("[T]he admission or exclusion of evidence in
general is within the sound discretion of the trial court. . . .  [T]he trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is based on
an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support. . . .  To warrant reversal
based on the admission or exclusion of evidence,
the appellant must prove both the error of the ruling and the resulting
prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the jury's verdict was
influenced by the challenged evidence or the lack
thereof." (citations omitted)). 

3. As to whether the trial court
erred in denying Manley's motion for a mistrial:  Holly Woods Ass'n of
Residence Owners v. Hiller, 392 S.C. 172, 187-88, 708 S.E.2d 787, 796 (Ct.
App. 2011) ("The grant or refusal of a mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court
and the court's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.  In
order to receive a mistrial, the moving party must show error and resulting
prejudice." (quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Knighton,
334 S.C. 125, 134, 512 S.E.2d 117, 122 (Ct. App. 1999) ("The burden is on
the movant to show not only error, but resulting
prejudice."). 

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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