object to the introduction of evidence claimed to be prejudicial cannot be later bootstrapped by a motion for a mistrial. State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222, 284 S.E.2d 786 (1981); State v. Moultrie, 316 S.C. 547, 451 S.E.2d 34 (Ct.App.1994); State v. Wilkins, 310 S.C. 81, 425 S.E.2d 68 (Ct.App.1992); see also State v. Curtis, 356 S.C. 622, 591 S.E.2d 600 (2004) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve error for appellate review); State v. Atchison, 268 S.C. 588, 235 S.E.2d 294 (1977) (noting that if a party fails to make a proper contemporaneous objection to the admission of evidence, he cannot later raise the issue by a motion for mistrial); State v. Crosby, 348 S.C. 387, 398-399, 559 S.E.2d 352, 358-59 (Ct.App.2001), rev'd on other grounds, 355 S.C. 47, 584 S.E.2d 110 (2003) (<HOLDING>). B. Mistrial In any event, even if preserved,
holding that no issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the judges ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial holding an issue not raised to the family court is not preserved for appellate review holding that where an objection is sustained and curative instruction given and no further relief such as a mistrial additional curative instruction or striking of the offending comment is requested there is nothing for the appellate court to review holding that an issue was not preserved for appellate review because appellants trial objection does not comport with the issue he raised on appeal holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review