State v. Canty ( 2014 )

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.
Reginald Canty, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2011-198090
Appeal From Sumter County
W. Jeffrey Young, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-208
Heard May 5, 2014 – Filed June 4, 2014
AFFIRMED
Breen Richard Stevens, of Orangeburg, and Appellate
Defender Benjamin John Tripp, of Columbia, for
Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest Adolphus Finney III,
of Sumter, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Reginald Canty appeals his convictions for murder and armed
robbery, arguing the trial court erred in (1) admitting a photograph of the victim's
gunshot wound and (2) denying his directed verdict motion. We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting the photograph of the victim's
gunshot wound: State v. Green, 397 S.C. 268, 287, 724 S.E.2d 664, 673 (2012)
(stating the admission of photographic evidence is within the trial court's sound
discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion);
State v. Stephens, 398 S.C. 314, 319-20, 728 S.E.2d 68, 71 (Ct. App. 2012) (noting
this court reviews the trial court's decision regarding Rule 403, SCRE, under an
abuse of discretion standard and must give great deference to the trial court's
ruling); Green, 397 S.C. at 287, 724 S.E.2d at 673 ("If the offered photograph
serves to corroborate testimony, it is not an abuse of discretion to admit it."); State
v. Nance, 320 S.C. 501, 508, 466 S.E.2d 349, 353 (1996) ("Moreover, we have
viewed the photographs and find that they were not unduly prejudicial to
Appellant.").
2. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Canty's directed verdict motion:
State v. Brown, 402 S.C. 119, 124, 740 S.E.2d 493, 495 (2013) ("[I]f there is any
direct or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt
of the accused, an appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to the
jury."); State v. Hill, 268 S.C. 390, 393, 395-96, 234 S.E.2d 219, 220-21 (1977)
(affirming the denial of a directed verdict motion and finding that "[a]lthough [the
appellant] may have been unaware of the final planning of the [armed] robbery and
did not accompany the perpetrators," "[t]he evidence justified submission of the
case to the jury" because: (1) "[t]here was evidence indicating the [a]ppellant had
previously discussed the robbery with the perpetrators"; (2) he appeared at the
scene of the robbery; (3) there was "testimony that he actually viewed the
commission of the crime"; and (4) he "received a portion of the proceeds of the
robbery"); State v. Thompson, 374 S.C. 257, 263-64, 647 S.E.2d 702, 705-06 (Ct.
App. 2007) (affirming the denial of a directed verdict motion and holding the
defendant could be found guilty under the hand of one is the hand of all
accomplice liability theory because he "discussed the robbery, appeared at the
crime scene with [his codefendant], and may have viewed the attempted robbery,"
and finding "[a]t the very least, [the defendant] aided the commission of the crime
by driving [his codefendant] to the scene and encouraged the crime by setting the
events in motion earlier that day").
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and SHORT and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.