State v. Vice

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Vice

DecidedMarch 12, 2014

Docket2014-UP-103

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Vice (State v. Vice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Vice, (S.C. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

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Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-103 Submitted February 1, 2014 – Filed March 12, 2014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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Vice, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-vice-scctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack