Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-338 - Austin v. Sea Crest Development Co.

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

Carolyn Songer Austin, Appellant,

v.

Sea Crest Development Co., Respondent.


Appeal From Beaufort County
 G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-338
Heard April 22, 2009 – Filed June 15, 2009   


AFFIRMED


M. Adam Gess, of Beaufort, Mark W. Hardee, of Columbia, and Robert E. Austin, Jr., of Leesburg, for Appellant.

Barrett R. Brewer, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Carolyn Austin appeals the circuit court's denial of her motion for a new trial absolute under the thirteenth juror doctrine.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Haselden v. Davis, 341 S.C. 486, 506, 534 S.E.2d 295, 306 (Ct. App. 2000) ("In reviewing the denial of a motion for a new trial under the thirteenth juror doctrine, we consider only whether there is any evidence to support the trial court's decision.  To reverse such a denial, we must find the moving party was entitled to a directed verdict at trial."); Black v. Hodge, 306 S.C. 196, 198, 410 S.E.2d 595, 596 (Ct. App. 1991) (stating the fact that testimony is uncontradicted does not necessarily render it undisputed, and the fact that a jury found for one party over the other does not open its decision to second-guessing); State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510, 476 S.E.2d 903, 912 (1996) (citing State v. Morris, 307 S.C. 480, 415 S.E.2d 819 (Ct. App. 1991)) ("No issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the judge's ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial."); Tanner v. Florence County Treasurer, 336 S.C. 552, 558-59, 521 S.E.2d 153, 156 (1999) (finding it well established that a motion to amend or supplement is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and the party opposing the motion has the burden of establishing prejudice); Weaver v. Lentz, 348 S.C. 672, 683, 561 S.E.2d 360, 366 (Ct. App. 2002) ("The admission of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court's decision will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); Rule 609(a)(2), SCRE (stating Rule 609 applies only to convictions, resulting from a trial or any type of plea); State v. Stone, 376 S.C. 32, 35-36, 655 S.E.2d 487, 488-89 (2007) (stating an argument in support of an objection is unpreserved unless the appellant argues the grounds at trial).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and PIEPER, J., and LOCKEMY, J., concur.