continuance test in South Carolina

2022See, e.g., State v. Meggett, 398 S.C. 516, 523 , 728 S.E.2d 492, 496 (Ct. App. 2012) (finding circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a continuance to test certain evidence because he "had a significant period of time to obtain the testing and his failure to do so was a result of his own inaction and not a lack of preparation time"). b.

2022See, e.g., State v. Meggett, 398 S.C. 516, 523 , 728 S.E.2d 492, 496 (Ct. App. 2012) (finding circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a continuance to test certain evidence because he "had a significant period of time to obtain the testing and his failure to do so was a result of his own inaction and not a lack of preparation time"). b.

2021See State v. Mansfield, 343 S.C. 66, 72 , 538 S.E.2d 257, 260 (Ct. App. 2000) ("The granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial judge."); id. ("The trial court's refusal of a motion for continuance will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice to the appellant."); State v. Meggett, 398 S.C. 516, 520, 523 , 728 S.E.2d 492, 494, 496 (Ct. App. 2012) (observing that "a party cannot complain of an error which his own conduct has induced" and finding no error in the denial of the defendant's motion for a conti

2021See State v. Mansfield, 343 S.C. 66, 72 , 538 S.E.2d 257, 260 (Ct. App. 2000) ("The granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial judge."); id. ("The trial court's refusal of a motion for continuance will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice to the appellant."); State v. Meggett, 398 S.C. 516, 520, 523 , 728 S.E.2d 492, 494, 496 (Ct. App. 2012) (observing that "a party cannot complain of an error which his own conduct has induced" and finding no error in the denial of the defendant's motion for a conti

2021See State v. Mansfield, 343 S.C. 66, 72 , 538 S.E.2d 257, 260 (Ct. App. 2000) ("The granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial judge."); id. ("The trial court's refusal of a motion for continuance will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice to the appellant."); State v. Meggett, 398 S.C. 516, 520, 523 , 728 S.E.2d 492, 494, 496 (Ct. App. 2012) (observing that "a party cannot complain of an error which his own conduct has induced" and finding no error in the denial of the defendant's motion for a conti

2021See State v. Mansfield, 343 S.C. 66, 72 , 538 S.E.2d 257, 260 (Ct. App. 2000) ("The granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial judge."); id. ("The trial court's refusal of a motion for continuance will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice to the appellant."); State v. Meggett, 398 S.C. 516, 520, 523 , 728 S.E.2d 492, 494, 496 (Ct. App. 2012) (observing that "a party cannot complain of an error which his own conduct has induced" and finding no error in the denial of the defendant's motion for a conti

2017See Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78, 102 , 594 S.E.2d 485, 498 (Ct. App. 2004) ("It is well-settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review." (quoting Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412 , 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000))).

2017See Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78, 102 , 594 S.E.2d 485, 498 (Ct. App. 2004) ("It is well-settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review." (quoting Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412 , 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000))).

2017See Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78, 102 , 594 S.E.2d 485, 498 (Ct. App. 2004) ("It is well-settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review." (quoting Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412 , 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000))).

2017See Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78, 102 , 594 S.E.2d 485, 498 (Ct. App. 2004) ("It is well-settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review." (quoting Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412 , 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000))).

2014See Doe v. Roe, 369 S.C. 351 , 375- 76, 631 S.E.2d 317, 330 (Ct. App. 2006) (stating an issue must be both raised to and ruled upon by the family court in order to be preserved for appellate review); id. at 376 , 631 S.E.2d at 330 ("An issue is not preserved where the [family] court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant does not make a Rule 59(e)[,SCRCP,] motion to alter or amend the judgment."); State v. Langford, 400 S.C. 421, 432 , 735 S.E.2d 471, 477 (2012) ("Constitutional questions must be preserved like any other issue on appeal."); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 62

2014See Doe v. Roe, 369 S.C. 351 , 375- 76, 631 S.E.2d 317, 330 (Ct. App. 2006) (stating an issue must be both raised to and ruled upon by the family court in order to be preserved for appellate review); id. at 376 , 631 S.E.2d at 330 ("An issue is not preserved where the [family] court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant does not make a Rule 59(e)[,SCRCP,] motion to alter or amend the judgment."); State v. Langford, 400 S.C. 421, 432 , 735 S.E.2d 471, 477 (2012) ("Constitutional questions must be preserved like any other issue on appeal."); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 62

2014See Doe v. Roe, 369 S.C. 351 , 375- 76, 631 S.E.2d 317, 330 (Ct. App. 2006) (stating an issue must be both raised to and ruled upon by the family court in order to be preserved for appellate review); id. at 376 , 631 S.E.2d at 330 ("An issue is not preserved where the [family] court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant does not make a Rule 59(e)[,SCRCP,] motion to alter or amend the judgment."); State v. Langford, 400 S.C. 421, 432 , 735 S.E.2d 471, 477 (2012) ("Constitutional questions must be preserved like any other issue on appeal."); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 62

2014See Doe v. Roe, 369 S.C. 351 , 375- 76, 631 S.E.2d 317, 330 (Ct. App. 2006) (stating an issue must be both raised to and ruled upon by the family court in order to be preserved for appellate review); id. at 376 , 631 S.E.2d at 330 ("An issue is not preserved where the [family] court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant does not make a Rule 59(e)[,SCRCP,] motion to alter or amend the judgment."); State v. Langford, 400 S.C. 421, 432 , 735 S.E.2d 471, 477 (2012) ("Constitutional questions must be preserved like any other issue on appeal."); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 62

2014See Doe v. Roe, 369 S.C. 351 , 375- 76, 631 S.E.2d 317, 330 (Ct. App. 2006) (stating an issue must be both raised to and ruled upon by the family court in order to be preserved for appellate review); id. at 376 , 631 S.E.2d at 330 ("An issue is not preserved where the [family] court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant does not make a Rule 59(e)[,SCRCP,] motion to alter or amend the judgment."); State v. Langford, 400 S.C. 421, 432 , 735 S.E.2d 471, 477 (2012) ("Constitutional questions must be preserved like any other issue on appeal."); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 62

2014See Doe v. Roe, 369 S.C. 351 , 375- 76, 631 S.E.2d 317, 330 (Ct. App. 2006) (stating an issue must be both raised to and ruled upon by the family court in order to be preserved for appellate review); id. at 376 , 631 S.E.2d at 330 ("An issue is not preserved where the [family] court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant does not make a Rule 59(e)[,SCRCP,] motion to alter or amend the judgment."); State v. Langford, 400 S.C. 421, 432 , 735 S.E.2d 471, 477 (2012) ("Constitutional questions must be preserved like any other issue on appeal."); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 62

2010See Rule 601, SCACR (stating a circuit court common pleas jury term has priority over a circuit court common pleas non-jury term); Plyler v. Burns , 373 S.C. 637, 650 , 647 S.E.2d 188, 195 (2007) ("The grant or denial of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and is reviewable on appeal only when an abuse of discretion appears from the record.").

2010See Rule 601, SCACR (stating a circuit court common pleas jury term has priority over a circuit court common pleas non-jury term); Plyler v. Burns , 373 S.C. 637, 650 , 647 S.E.2d 188, 195 (2007) ("The grant or denial of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and is reviewable on appeal only when an abuse of discretion appears from the record.").