State v. Baylock ( 2012 )

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.
Elijah S. Baylock, Jr., Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2011-191487
Appeal From Berkeley County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-482
Submitted July 2, 2012 – Filed August 8, 2012
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney
General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor
Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Elijah Solomon Baylock, Jr. appeals his convictions of first-
degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor and lewd act on a minor. He argues
the trial judge erred when he charged the jury that, pursuant to section 16-3-657 of
the South Carolina Code (2003), the victim's testimony did not need to be
corroborated. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (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."); In re Care & Treatment of Corley, 365 S.C.
252, 258, 616 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Constitutional issues, like most
others, must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial [judge] to be preserved for
appeal."); State v. Stone, 285 S.C. 386, 387, 330 S.E.2d 286, 287 (1985) (finding
that in order to preserve an objection to a jury charge, a defendant must object to
the charge as given or request an additional charge when afforded the opportunity
to do so).
AFFIRMED.
PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.