Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-042 - State v. Strock

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.

Douglas Malcolm Strock, Appellant.


Appeal From Clarendon County
Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-042
Submitted January 4, 2011 – Filed February 1, 2011   


AFFIRMED


Scott Lamar Robinson, of Manning, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Cecil Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Douglas Malcolm Strock appeals his conviction for criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature (CDVHAN), arguing the trial court erred in: (1) allowing a voicemail message to be played to the jury, (2) denying Strock's motion for a directed verdict, (3) allowing the victim to offer testimony regarding her state of mind and appearance following the assault, (4) allowing the victim and other witnesses to offer testimony regarding the victim's injuries, and (5) failing to grant a mistrial.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the voicemail message to be played to the jury:  Rule 403, SCRE ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."); Rule 901(a), SCRE ("[A] condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims."); State v. Landon, 370 S.C. 103, 108, 634 S.E.2d 660, 663 (2006) (noting a violation of the rule governing disclosure of evidence in criminal cases is not reversible unless prejudice is shown).   

2. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Strock's motion for a directed verdict:  State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) (stating when ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight).

 3. As to all remaining issues:  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 judge. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.").

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 


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