Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-276 - State v. Byers

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Najjar De'Breece Byers, Appellant.


Appeal From York County
 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-276
Submitted May 1, 2009 – Filed June 2, 2009  


AFFIRMED


Robert A. Muckenfuss, of Charlotte, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia, and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Najjar De'Breece  Byers appeals his convictions for  armed robbery and criminal conspiracy.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities.    

1.  As to whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike a witness’s hearsay testimony: State v. Rice, 375 S.C. 302, 322-23, 652 S.E.2d 409, 419 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling made, the issue is not preserved for review."); Parr v. Gaines, 309 S.C. 477, 481, 424 S.E.2d 515, 518 (Ct. App. 1992) ("In [the] absence of a contemporaneous objection, a motion to strike may be denied.").

2.  As to whether the trial court erred in denying Byers's motion for a directed verdict: State v. Cherry, 361 S.C. 588, 593, 606 S.E.2d 475, 478 (2004) (explaining a defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to produce evidence of the offense charged); State v. Harris, 351 S.C. 643, 653, 572 S.E.2d 267, 273 (2002) (stating if there is any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, an appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to the jury). 

3.  As to whether the trial court erred instructing the jury on the legal principle "the hand of one is the hand of all":  Rule 20(b), SCRCrimP, ("[T]he parties shall be given the opportunity to object to the giving or failure to give an instruction before the jury retires . . . .  Failure to object in accordance with this rule shall constitute a waiver of objection."); State v. Whipple, 324 S.C. 43, 52, 476 S.E.2d 683, 688 (1996) (holding a party’s failure to object to the charge as given constitutes a waiver of his right to complain on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.