jury a curative instruction in South Carolina

2025Id. at 417 , 692 S.E.2d at 203 ; see also id. at 420 , 692 S.E.2d at 205 ("[A] curative instruction is generally deemed to have cured any alleged error."); State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903 , 911–12 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643 , 659–60, 623 S.E.2d 122, 130 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding a mistrial motion was properly denied when "the judge gave [multiple] curative instruction[s] to the members of the jury,"

2025Id. at 417 , 692 S.E.2d at 203 ; see also id. at 420 , 692 S.E.2d at 205 ("[A] curative instruction is generally deemed to have cured any alleged error."); State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903 , 911–12 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643 , 659–60, 623 S.E.2d 122, 130 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding a mistrial motion was properly denied when "the judge gave [multiple] curative instruction[s] to the members of the jury,"

2025Id. at 417 , 692 S.E.2d at 203 ; see also id. at 420 , 692 S.E.2d at 205 ("[A] curative instruction is generally deemed to have cured any alleged error."); State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903 , 911–12 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643 , 659–60, 623 S.E.2d 122, 130 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding a mistrial motion was properly denied when "the judge gave [multiple] curative instruction[s] to the members of the jury,"

2025Id. at 417 , 692 S.E.2d at 203 ; see also id. at 420 , 692 S.E.2d at 205 ("[A] curative instruction is generally deemed to have cured any alleged error."); State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903 , 911–12 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643 , 659–60, 623 S.E.2d 122, 130 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding a mistrial motion was properly denied when "the judge gave [multiple] curative instruction[s] to the members of the jury,"

2025See Tappeiner, 416 S.C. at 251 , 785 S.E.2d at 477 ("In assessing the propriety of remarks made during the State's closing argument, appellate courts must determine 'whether the solicitor's comments "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process."'" (quoting Vaughn, 362 S.C. at 169–70, 607 S.E.2d at 75 )); State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct. App. 2006) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to evidence and gives the jury a curative instruction that it be disregarded, the error is deemed to have been cured by

2025See Tappeiner, 416 S.C. at 251 , 785 S.E.2d at 477 ("In assessing the propriety of remarks made during the State's closing argument, appellate courts must determine 'whether the solicitor's comments "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process."'" (quoting Vaughn, 362 S.C. at 169–70, 607 S.E.2d at 75 )); State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct. App. 2006) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to evidence and gives the jury a curative instruction that it be disregarded, the error is deemed to have been cured by

2025See State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-912 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 226 , 522 S.E.2d 845, 850 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Because a trial court's curative instruction is considered to cure any error regarding improper testimony, a party must contemporaneously object to a curative instruction as insufficient or move for a mistrial to preserve an issue for review."); Washington v. State, 440 S.C. 550 ,

2025See State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-912 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 226 , 522 S.E.2d 845, 850 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Because a trial court's curative instruction is considered to cure any error regarding improper testimony, a party must contemporaneously object to a curative instruction as insufficient or move for a mistrial to preserve an issue for review."); Washington v. State, 440 S.C. 550 ,

2025See State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-912 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 226 , 522 S.E.2d 845, 850 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Because a trial court's curative instruction is considered to cure any error regarding improper testimony, a party must contemporaneously object to a curative instruction as insufficient or move for a mistrial to preserve an issue for review."); Washington v. State, 440 S.C. 550 ,

2025See State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-912 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 226 , 522 S.E.2d 845, 850 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Because a trial court's curative instruction is considered to cure any error regarding improper testimony, a party must contemporaneously object to a curative instruction as insufficient or move for a mistrial to preserve an issue for review."); Washington v. State, 440 S.C. 550 ,

2017PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Rogers, 361 S.C. 178, 183 , 603 S.E.2d 910, 912-13 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must be "(1) raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, (2) raised by the appellant, (3) raised in a timely manner, and (4) raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity"); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal."); State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510-11 , 476 S.E.

2017PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Rogers, 361 S.C. 178, 183 , 603 S.E.2d 910, 912-13 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must be "(1) raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, (2) raised by the appellant, (3) raised in a timely manner, and (4) raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity"); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal."); State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510-11 , 476 S.E.

2005“If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured.” State v. George, 323 S.C. 496 , 476 S.E.2d 903 (1996); State v. Craig, 267 S.C. 262 , 227 S.E.2d 306 (1976); State v. McCord, 349 S.C. 477 , 562 S.E.2d 689 (Ct.App.2002).

2005“If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured.” State v. George, 323 S.C. 496 , 476 S.E.2d 903 (1996); State v. Craig, 267 S.C. 262 , 227 S.E.2d 306 (1976); State v. McCord, 349 S.C. 477 , 562 S.E.2d 689 (Ct.App.2002).

2003As to Phillips’ other issues, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: As to Issue II: State v. Craig , 267 S.C. 262, 268 , 227 S.E.2d 306, 309 (1976) (“[T]he consideration of whether there was any prejudice requires that a motion for mistrial be made after the trial judge attempts to cure the error.”); State v. Hale , 284 S.C. 348, 354 , 326 S.E.2d 418, 422 (Ct. App. 1985) (holding an error is generally deemed cured if the court sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony); State v. George , 3

2003As to Phillips’ other issues, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: As to Issue II: State v. Craig , 267 S.C. 262, 268 , 227 S.E.2d 306, 309 (1976) (“[T]he consideration of whether there was any prejudice requires that a motion for mistrial be made after the trial judge attempts to cure the error.”); State v. Hale , 284 S.C. 348, 354 , 326 S.E.2d 418, 422 (Ct. App. 1985) (holding an error is generally deemed cured if the court sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony); State v. George , 3

2025We hold this issue is not preserved for appellate review because Darby failed to move for a mistrial after the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the pathologist's testimony about the "asphyxia type event." See George, 323 S.C. at 510 , 476 S.E.2d at 912 ("No issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the [trial court's] ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial."); State v. Brown, 389 S.C. 84, 95 , 697 S.E.2d 622, 628 (Ct. App. 2010) ("If a trial court issues a curat

2025We hold this issue is not preserved for appellate review because Darby failed to move for a mistrial after the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the pathologist's testimony about the "asphyxia type event." See George, 323 S.C. at 510 , 476 S.E.2d at 912 ("No issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the [trial court's] ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial."); State v. Brown, 389 S.C. 84, 95 , 697 S.E.2d 622, 628 (Ct. App. 2010) ("If a trial court issues a curat

2025See State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-912 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 226 , 522 S.E.2d 845, 850 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Because a trial court's curative instruction is considered to cure any error regarding improper testimony, a party must contemporaneously object to a curative instruction as insufficient or move for a mistrial to preserve an issue for review."); Washington v. State, 440 S.C. 550 ,

2025See State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-912 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 226 , 522 S.E.2d 845, 850 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Because a trial court's curative instruction is considered to cure any error regarding improper testimony, a party must contemporaneously object to a curative instruction as insufficient or move for a mistrial to preserve an issue for review."); Washington v. State, 440 S.C. 550 ,

2025Id. at 417 , 692 S.E.2d at 203 ; see also id. at 420 , 692 S.E.2d at 205 ("[A] curative instruction is generally deemed to have cured any alleged error."); State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903 , 911–12 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643 , 659–60, 623 S.E.2d 122, 130 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding a mistrial motion was properly denied when "the judge gave [multiple] curative instruction[s] to the members of the jury,"

2025Id. at 417 , 692 S.E.2d at 203 ; see also id. at 420 , 692 S.E.2d at 205 ("[A] curative instruction is generally deemed to have cured any alleged error."); State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903 , 911–12 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643 , 659–60, 623 S.E.2d 122, 130 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding a mistrial motion was properly denied when "the judge gave [multiple] curative instruction[s] to the members of the jury,"

2025We hold this issue is not preserved for appellate review because Darby failed to move for a mistrial after the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the pathologist's testimony about the "asphyxia type event." See George, 323 S.C. at 510 , 476 S.E.2d at 912 ("No issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the [trial court's] ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial."); State v. Brown, 389 S.C. 84, 95 , 697 S.E.2d 622, 628 (Ct. App. 2010) ("If a trial court issues a curat

2025We hold this issue is not preserved for appellate review because Darby failed to move for a mistrial after the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the pathologist's testimony about the "asphyxia type event." See George, 323 S.C. at 510 , 476 S.E.2d at 912 ("No issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the [trial court's] ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial."); State v. Brown, 389 S.C. 84, 95 , 697 S.E.2d 622, 628 (Ct. App. 2010) ("If a trial court issues a curat

2025See Tappeiner, 416 S.C. at 251 , 785 S.E.2d at 477 ("In assessing the propriety of remarks made during the State's closing argument, appellate courts must determine 'whether the solicitor's comments "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process."'" (quoting Vaughn, 362 S.C. at 169–70, 607 S.E.2d at 75 )); State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct. App. 2006) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to evidence and gives the jury a curative instruction that it be disregarded, the error is deemed to have been cured by

2025See Tappeiner, 416 S.C. at 251 , 785 S.E.2d at 477 ("In assessing the propriety of remarks made during the State's closing argument, appellate courts must determine 'whether the solicitor's comments "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process."'" (quoting Vaughn, 362 S.C. at 169–70, 607 S.E.2d at 75 )); State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct. App. 2006) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to evidence and gives the jury a curative instruction that it be disregarded, the error is deemed to have been cured by

2025See Tappeiner, 416 S.C. at 251 , 785 S.E.2d at 477 ("In assessing the propriety of remarks made during the State's closing argument, appellate courts must determine 'whether the solicitor's comments "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process."'" (quoting Vaughn, 362 S.C. at 169–70, 607 S.E.2d at 75 )); State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct. App. 2006) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to evidence and gives the jury a curative instruction that it be disregarded, the error is deemed to have been cured by

2025See Tappeiner, 416 S.C. at 251 , 785 S.E.2d at 477 ("In assessing the propriety of remarks made during the State's closing argument, appellate courts must determine 'whether the solicitor's comments "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process."'" (quoting Vaughn, 362 S.C. at 169–70, 607 S.E.2d at 75 )); State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct. App. 2006) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to evidence and gives the jury a curative instruction that it be disregarded, the error is deemed to have been cured by

2017PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Rogers, 361 S.C. 178, 183 , 603 S.E.2d 910, 912-13 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must be "(1) raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, (2) raised by the appellant, (3) raised in a timely manner, and (4) raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity"); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal."); State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510-11 , 476 S.E.

2017PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Rogers, 361 S.C. 178, 183 , 603 S.E.2d 910, 912-13 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must be "(1) raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, (2) raised by the appellant, (3) raised in a timely manner, and (4) raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity"); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal."); State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510-11 , 476 S.E.

2015As to whether the trial court erred by not making specific findings of fact on the record that Moore received notice of his right to be present and was warned the trial would proceed in his absence: Rule 16, SCRCrimP ("[A] person indicted for misdemeanors and/or felonies may voluntarily waive his right to be present and may be tried in his absence upon a finding by the court that such person has received notice of his right to be present and that a warning was given that the trial would proceed in his absence upon a failure to attend the court."); State v. Williams, 292 S.C. 231, 232 , 355 S.E

2015As to whether the trial court erred by not making specific findings of fact on the record that Moore received notice of his right to be present and was warned the trial would proceed in his absence: Rule 16, SCRCrimP ("[A] person indicted for misdemeanors and/or felonies may voluntarily waive his right to be present and may be tried in his absence upon a finding by the court that such person has received notice of his right to be present and that a warning was given that the trial would proceed in his absence upon a failure to attend the court."); State v. Williams, 292 S.C. 231, 232 , 355 S.E

2015As to whether the trial court erred by not making specific findings of fact on the record that Moore received notice of his right to be present and was warned the trial would proceed in his absence: Rule 16, SCRCrimP ("[A] person indicted for misdemeanors and/or felonies may voluntarily waive his right to be present and may be tried in his absence upon a finding by the court that such person has received notice of his right to be present and that a warning was given that the trial would proceed in his absence upon a failure to attend the court."); State v. Williams, 292 S.C. 231, 232 , 355 S.E

2015As to whether the trial court erred by not making specific findings of fact on the record that Moore received notice of his right to be present and was warned the trial would proceed in his absence: Rule 16, SCRCrimP ("[A] person indicted for misdemeanors and/or felonies may voluntarily waive his right to be present and may be tried in his absence upon a finding by the court that such person has received notice of his right to be present and that a warning was given that the trial would proceed in his absence upon a failure to attend the court."); State v. Williams, 292 S.C. 231, 232 , 355 S.E

2014See State v. Smith, 290 S.C. 393, 395 , 350 S.E.2d 923, 924 (1986) ("The jury should be specifically instructed to disregard the evidence, and not to consider it for any purpose during deliberations."); State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct. App. 2006) ("If the trial [court] sustains a timely objection to evidence and gives the jury a curative instruction that it be disregarded, the error is deemed to have been cured by the instruction."); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643, 658 , 623 S.E.2d 122, 129 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Generally, a curative instruction is deemed to have cured a

2014See State v. Smith, 290 S.C. 393, 395 , 350 S.E.2d 923, 924 (1986) ("The jury should be specifically instructed to disregard the evidence, and not to consider it for any purpose during deliberations."); State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct. App. 2006) ("If the trial [court] sustains a timely objection to evidence and gives the jury a curative instruction that it be disregarded, the error is deemed to have been cured by the instruction."); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643, 658 , 623 S.E.2d 122, 129 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Generally, a curative instruction is deemed to have cured a

2014As to the witness's surmise that Williams feared being implicated in the victim's murder and related crimes because, among other reasons, "of his charges that he had previous . . . ": State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-12 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Wasson, 299 S.C. 508, 510 , 386 S.E.2d 255, 256 (1989) ("The granting or refusing of a motion for a mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court whose rulin

2014As to the witness's surmise that Williams feared being implicated in the victim's murder and related crimes because, among other reasons, "of his charges that he had previous . . . ": State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-12 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Wasson, 299 S.C. 508, 510 , 386 S.E.2d 255, 256 (1989) ("The granting or refusing of a motion for a mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court whose rulin

2014As to the witness's surmise that Williams feared being implicated in the victim's murder and related crimes because, among other reasons, "of his charges that he had previous . . . ": State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-12 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Wasson, 299 S.C. 508, 510 , 386 S.E.2d 255, 256 (1989) ("The granting or refusing of a motion for a mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court whose rulin

2014As to the witness's surmise that Williams feared being implicated in the victim's murder and related crimes because, among other reasons, "of his charges that he had previous . . . ": State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-12 (1996) ("If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured."); State v. Wasson, 299 S.C. 508, 510 , 386 S.E.2d 255, 256 (1989) ("The granting or refusing of a motion for a mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court whose rulin

2013As to Issue 1: State v. Pace, 337 S.C. 407, 419 , 523 S.E.2d 466, 472 (Ct. App. 1999) (noting "where the trial court gives the jury a curative instruction, 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 again for mistrial").

2013As to Issue 1: State v. Pace, 337 S.C. 407, 419 , 523 S.E.2d 466, 472 (Ct. App. 1999) (noting "where the trial court gives the jury a curative instruction, 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 again for mistrial").

2004See State v. Kelsey , 331 S.C. 50, 70 , 502 S.E.2d 63, 73 (1998) (explaining that instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence will usually cure any error in its admission); State v. George , 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-12 (1996) (stating that when a trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard testimony, any error is deemed to be cured); State v. Patterson , 337 S.C. 215, 226 , 522 S.E.2d 845, 850-51 (Ct. App. 1999); see also Jackson v. Speed , 326 S.C. 289, 307 , 486 S.E.2d 750, 759 (1997).

2004See State v. Kelsey , 331 S.C. 50, 70 , 502 S.E.2d 63, 73 (1998) (explaining that instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence will usually cure any error in its admission); State v. George , 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-12 (1996) (stating that when a trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard testimony, any error is deemed to be cured); State v. Patterson , 337 S.C. 215, 226 , 522 S.E.2d 845, 850-51 (Ct. App. 1999); see also Jackson v. Speed , 326 S.C. 289, 307 , 486 S.E.2d 750, 759 (1997).

2004See State v. Kelsey , 331 S.C. 50, 70 , 502 S.E.2d 63, 73 (1998) (explaining that instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence will usually cure any error in its admission); State v. George , 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-12 (1996) (stating that when a trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard testimony, any error is deemed to be cured); State v. Patterson , 337 S.C. 215, 226 , 522 S.E.2d 845, 850-51 (Ct. App. 1999); see also Jackson v. Speed , 326 S.C. 289, 307 , 486 S.E.2d 750, 759 (1997).

2004See State v. Kelsey , 331 S.C. 50, 70 , 502 S.E.2d 63, 73 (1998) (explaining that instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence will usually cure any error in its admission); State v. George , 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-12 (1996) (stating that when a trial judge sustains a timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard testimony, any error is deemed to be cured); State v. Patterson , 337 S.C. 215, 226 , 522 S.E.2d 845, 850-51 (Ct. App. 1999); see also Jackson v. Speed , 326 S.C. 289, 307 , 486 S.E.2d 750, 759 (1997).

2003As to Issue III: State v. Grippon , 327 S.C. 79, 83-84 , 489 S.E.2d 462, 464 (1997) (holding the appropriate circumstantial evidence charge is the following: “Circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating the existence of a fact.

2003As to Issue III: State v. Grippon , 327 S.C. 79, 83-84 , 489 S.E.2d 462, 464 (1997) (holding the appropriate circumstantial evidence charge is the following: “Circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating the existence of a fact.