Opinion
2015-UP-334
07-01-2015
The State, Respondent, v. Michael Roscoe, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2013-000906
Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mary Williams Leddon, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers of Lexington for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Submitted March 1, 2015
Appeal From Lexington County Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge
Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mary Williams Leddon, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers of Lexington for Respondent.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579, 583, 698 S.E.2d 862, 864 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Appellate courts have recognized that an issue will not be preserved for review where the trial court sustains a party's objection to improper testimony and the party does not subsequently move to strike the testimony or for a mistrial."); id. ("The rationale for this rule is clear; without a motion to strike or motion for a mistrial, when the objecting party is sustained, he has received what he asked for and cannot be heard to complain about a favorable ruling on appeal."); id. ("When an objecting party is sustained, the trial court has rendered a favorable ruling, and therefore, it becomes necessary that the sustained party move to cure, or move for a mistrial if such a cure is insufficient, in order to create an appealable issue."); id. ("Moreover, as the law assumes a curative instruction will remedy an error, failure to accept such a charge when offered, or failure to object to the sufficiency of that charge, renders the issue waived and unpreserved for appellate review."); State v. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 226, 522 S.E.2d 845, 850 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Because a trial court's curative instruction is considered to cure any error regarding improper testimony, a party must contemporaneously object to a curative instruction as insufficient or move for a mistrial to preserve an issue for review."); State v. McEachern, 399 S.C. 125, 146-47, 731 S.E.2d 604, 615 (Ct. App. 2012) (holding the issue of whether the trial court should have granted a mistrial was not preserved because the appellant failed to object to the curative instruction and failed to move for a mistrial after the trial court gave its curative instruction).
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
SHORT, LOCKEMY, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.