Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-336 - State v. Thompson

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.

James Walter Thompson, IV, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2009-135606


Appeal From Pickens County
G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-336
Heard May 8, 2012 – Filed May 30, 2012


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia, and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  James Thompson seeks reversal of his convictions based on the trial court's allegedly incomplete jury charges.  At oral argument, Thompson conceded that, at trial, he "did not offer the charge as we are discussing it here today."  When asked by the court how the objection to the charge was preserved, Thompson acknowledged preservation "is a difficult question."  We find the issue unpreserved and affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 20, SCRCrimP (Any objection to a jury charge "shall state distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for objection.  Failure to object in accordance with this rule shall constitute a waiver of objection." (emphasis added)); State v. Morris, 307 S.C. 480, 486, 415 S.E.2d 819, 823 (Ct. App. 1991) (finding defendant's appellate objection to curative jury charge unpreserved because "[n]o 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").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.