Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-138 - State v. Johnson

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.

Brad R. Johnson, Appellant.


Appeal From Horry County
 J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-138
Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed February 22, 2010


AFFIRMED


Stuart Mark Axelrod, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor John Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Brad J. Johnson was charged with trespassing onto Lewis W. Hall's property. A jury found him guilty, and the trial court sentenced Johnson to either thirty days' imprisonment or a $425 fine.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  As to whether the trial court erred in denying Johnson's motion for a directed verdict: S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-600 (2003) (stating entry on another's property after notice prohibiting entry is a misdemeanor); State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) ("When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight.").

2.  As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit the prior inconsistent statement because it was not relevant:  State v. Fossick, 333 S.C. 66, 70, 508 S.E.2d 32, 34 (1998) ("In determining harmless error regarding any issue of witness credibility, we will consider the importance of the witness's testimony to the prosecution's case, whether the witness's testimony was cumulative, whether other evidence corroborates or contradicts the witness's testimony, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the State's case.").

3.  As to whether the trial court erred in denying the admission of the jury charge on prior inconsistent statements:  Brown v. Stewart, 348 S.C. 33, 53, 557 S.E.2d 676, 686 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding a jury charge must be not only erroneous, but also prejudicial, in order to entitle an appellant to reversal); Id. ("It is not error to refuse a request to charge when the substance of the request is included in the general instructions."). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 


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