State v. Page ( 2013 )

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.
Belvin Maurice Page, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2012-213143
Appeal From Charleston County
Roger M. Young, Sr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-480
Submitted December 1, 2013 – Filed December 23, 2013
AFFIRMED
Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, both of Columbia,
for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Belvin Page appeals his conviction of distribution of crack
cocaine, arguing the trial court erred in (1) allowing evidence of prior bad acts that
showed Page previously sold drugs to the confidential informant and (2) denying
his motion for a mistrial after a juror recognized the confidential informant as a
former patient in a drug treatment program. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence of prior bad acts: State v.
Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 393, 440 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1994) ("A contemporaneous
objection is required to properly preserve an error for appellate review."); State v.
Parker, 315 S.C. 230, 234, 433 S.E.2d 831, 833 (1993) (holding there is no
reversible error if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming without any reference to
the wrongly admitted evidence of a prior bad act).
2. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Page's motion for a mistrial: State
v. Harris, 340 S.C. 59, 63, 530 S.E.2d 626, 627-28 (2000) ("The trial court has
broad discretion in assessing allegations of juror misconduct. In determining
whether outside influences have affected the jury, relevant factors include (1) the
number of jurors exposed, (2) the weight of the evidence properly before the jury,
and (3) the likelihood that curative measures were effective in reducing the
prejudice . . . . The granting or refusing of a motion for a mistrial lies within the
sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal
absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law." (citations omitted)).1
AFFIRMED.2
HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
As to any argument that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing to
determine whether the other jurors were affected by one juror's acquaintance with
the confidential informant, the issue is not preserved because Page did not request
the hearing at trial. See State v. Porter, 389 S.C. 27, 37, 698 S.E.2d 237, 242 (Ct.
App. 2010) ("The general rule of issue preservation is if an issue was not raised to
and ruled upon by the trial court, it will not be considered for the first time on
appeal.").
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.