State v. Tyler ( 2015 )

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.
Larry James Tyler, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2013-000466
Appeal From Darlington County
Paul M. Burch, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-025
Heard October 8, 2014 – Filed January 14, 2015
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for
Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: In this appeal from his conviction of contributing to the
delinquency of a minor, Appellant Larry James Tyler (Appellant) argues the trial
court erred in denying his directed verdict motion because the State failed to
present substantial circumstantial evidence that Appellant violated section 16-17-
490 of the South Carolina Code (2003). We find the case was properly submitted
to the jury because Appellant gave ten-year-old Minor and her eight-year-old sister
a cell phone containing (1) draft text messages indicating his desire to have Minor
alone in his bed; and (2) a picture of Appellant in blue underwear, which Minor
characterized as a "naked" picture. Furthermore, the evidence shows Appellant
employed "grooming" tactics with Minor—calculated behavior that intentionally
breaks down appropriate physical boundaries until victimization is possible.
Therefore, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006)
("When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with
the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight."); State v. Smith, 359
S.C. 481, 490, 597 S.E.2d 888, 893 (Ct. App. 2004) ("In reviewing the denial of a
motion for a directed verdict, this court must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the State, and if there is any direct evidence or any substantial
circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, we
must find that the case was properly submitted to the jury."); State v. Rodriguez,
279 S.C. 106, 108–09, 302 S.E.2d 666, 667 (1983) (rejecting the argument that
because the minor resisted appellant's advances, the minor did not "wilfully" injure
her morals as defined by section 16-17-490 of the South Carolina Code); id. at 109,
302 S.E.2d at 667 ("We do not believe the legislature intended the statute to apply
only when the minor is a willing participant. The evidence shows appellant
encouraged the victim to wilfully injure her morals; that she chose not to cooperate
is of no consequence.").
AFFIRMED.
WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.