Opinion ID: 1265609
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: unrelated crimes

Text: At trial, in an attempt to show flight, the Solicitor questioned Outen as to why the group had gone to North Carolina after the shooting. Outen replied, To steal cars. Later, Clark testified that the group had been fussing over some boxes with keys in them. Sherard contends this evidence of other crimes was improper. We disagree. Outen's testimony regarding why they went to North Carolina was admissible on the issue of flight. See, State v. Thompson , 278 S.C. 1, 292 S.E. (2d) 581 (1982), cert. denied , 456 U.S. 938, 102 S.Ct. 1996, 72 L.Ed. (2d) 458. Further, although defense counsel objected to the Solicitor's question, no objection nor request for curative instruction was made to Outen's response. Accordingly, the error, if any, is not preserved. Regarding Clark's testimony concerning key boxes, we find no implication that Sherard was involved in a crime.