State v. Vice

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.
David Vice, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2012-213412
Appeal From Williamsburg County
Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-103
Submitted February 1, 2014 – Filed March 12, 2014
AFFIRMED
Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of
Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for a mistrial: State v.
Walker, 366 S.C. 643, 658, 623 S.E.2d 122, 129 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Generally, a
curative instruction is deemed to have cured any alleged error."); State v. White,
371 S.C. 439, 446, 639 S.E.2d 160, 164 (Ct. App. 2006) ("While an instruction to
disregard incompetent evidence usually is deemed to have cured the error in its
admission, a mistrial may still be required if on the facts of the particular case it is
probable, notwithstanding such instruction or withdrawal, the accused was
prejudiced."); id. at 447, 639 S.E.2d at 164 (noting a determination as to prejudice
must be based on the entire record and the result will generally turn of the facts of
each case); id. (noting the admission of improper evidence is considered harmless
when the improper evidence is merely cumulative to other evidence presented
during trial).
2. As to whether the trial court erred in charging the jury: 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 [court.] Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be
considered on appeal."); id. at 142, 587 S.E.2d at 694 ("A party may not argue one
ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal.").
AFFIRMED.1
HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.