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.
Garvin Duvall, Appellant
Appeal From Anderson County
J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-132
Heard February 16, 2012 � Filed February
29, 2012���
AFFIRMED
Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM:� Garvin Duvall appeals his convictions for murder, conspiracy, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. Duvall argues that statements of the decedent regarding his belief that Duvall's co-defendant was planning to shoot him or set his car on fire constituted inadmissible hearsay. �Duvall also argues these statements were unfairly prejudicial and their prejudicial effect substantially outweighed their probative value. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:� State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510, 476 S.E.2d 903, 912 (1996) (holding that an issue is not preserved for review if the objecting party accepts the judge's ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative instruction or move for a mistrial); State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579, 583, 698 S.E.2d 862, 864 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding that the law assumes a curative instruction will remedy an error and failure to object to the sufficiency of the charge renders the issue waived and unpreserved for appellate review); State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445, 639 S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct. App. 2006) ("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." (quoting State v. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 226, 522 S.E.2d 845, 850 (Ct. App. 1999))).
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., PIEPER and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.