State v. Green ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • 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.
    Al Martinez Green, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2014-000603
    Appeal From Lancaster County
    R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-205
    Heard April 12, 2016 – Filed May 11, 2016
    AFFIRMED
    Jane Hawthorne Merrill, of Hawthorne Merrill Law,
    LLC, of Greenwood, and Chief Appellate Defender
    Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
    Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
    Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior
    Assistant Attorney General W. Edgar Salter, III, all of
    Columbia; and Solicitor Randy E. Newman, Jr., of
    Lancaster, for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Al Martinez Green appeals his conviction for murder, arguing
    the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. We affirm
    pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Phillips,
    Op. No. 27607 (S.C. Sup. Ct. refiled Apr. 20, 2016) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 16 at
    20, 24) ("In reviewing a motion for directed verdict, the trial court is concerned
    with the existence of evidence, not with its weight."); id. at 25 ("When the
    evidence presented merely raises a suspicion of the accused's guilt, the trial court
    should not refuse to grant the directed verdict motion."); id. ("However, the trial
    court must submit the case to the jury if there is 'any substantial evidence which
    reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused, or from which his guilt may be
    fairly and logically deduced.'" (quoting State v. Mitchell, 
    341 S.C. 406
    , 409, 
    535 S.E.2d 126
    , 127 (2000))); id. at 46 (stating that when ruling on a motion for a
    directed verdict, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable
    to the State); State v. Larmand, 
    415 S.C. 23
    , 32, 
    780 S.E.2d 892
    , 896 (2015), reh'g
    granted, (Dec. 23, 2015), reh'g denied, (Feb. 11, 2016) ("[O]ur duty is not to weigh
    the plausibility of the parties' competing explanations. Rather, we must assess
    whether, in the light most favorable to the State, there was substantial
    circumstantial evidence from which the jury could infer [the defendant]'s guilt.");
    State v. Bennett, 
    415 S.C. 232
    , 237, 
    781 S.E.2d 352
    , 354 (2016) ("Therefore,
    although the jury must consider alternative hypotheses, the court must concern
    itself solely with the existence or non-existence of evidence from which a jury
    could reasonably infer guilt. This objective test is founded upon reasonableness.
    Accordingly, in ruling on a directed verdict motion where the State relies on
    circumstantial evidence, the court must determine whether the evidence presented
    is sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find the defendant guilty beyond a
    reasonable doubt."); State v. Pearson, Op. No. 27612 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Mar. 23,
    2016) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 12 at 13, 23) (reversing this court's reversal of the
    denial of a directed motion, finding this court "weighed the evidence and
    erroneously required the State, at the directed verdict stage, to present evidence
    sufficient to exclude every other hypothesis of [the defendant]'s guilt").
    AFFIRMED.
    HUFF, A.C.J., and KONDUROS and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2016-UP-205

Filed Date: 5/11/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024