State v. White ( 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.
    Reginald Raynard White a/k/a Reginald Raynard White,
    Jr., Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2015-000171
    Appeal From York County
    Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-441
    Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed October 26, 2016
    AFFIRMED
    Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for
    Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
    Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of
    Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York,
    for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Reginald Raynard White appeals his convictions for trafficking
    in cocaine and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, arguing the trial
    court erred in (1) admitting evidence of his prior drug distribution because it was a
    prior bad act and unduly prejudicial and (2) denying his motion for a directed
    verdict when the State failed to present any substantial evidence he had dominion
    and control over the drugs or the premises where they were found. We affirm
    pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
    As to issue 1: State v. Gagum, 
    328 S.C. 560
    , 564-65, 
    492 S.E.2d 822
    , 824 (Ct.
    App. 1997) ("Because a ruling in an in limine motion is not final, the losing party
    must renew his objection at trial when the evidence is presented in order to
    preserve the issue for appeal.").
    As to issue 2: State v. Bennett, 
    415 S.C. 232
    , 235, 
    781 S.E.2d 352
    , 353 (2016)
    (stating the appellate "[c]ourt's review is limited to considering the existence or
    nonexistence of evidence, not its weight"); id. at 236-37, 
    781 S.E.2d at 354
    ("[W]hen ruling on a directed verdict motion, the trial court views the evidence in
    the light most favorable to the State and 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.
    Littlejohn, 
    228 S.C. 324
    , 329, 
    89 S.E.2d 924
    , 926 (1955))); State v. Pradubsri, 
    403 S.C. 270
    , 282, 
    743 S.E.2d 98
    , 105 (Ct. App. 2013) ("To prove constructive
    possession, the State must show a defendant had dominion and control, or the right
    to exercise dominion and control, over the [drugs]." (alteration by Jackson)
    (quoting State v. Jackson, 
    395 S.C. 250
    , 255, 
    717 S.E.2d 609
    , 611 (Ct. App.
    2011))); State v. Heath, 
    370 S.C. 326
    , 329-30, 
    635 S.E.2d 18
    , 19 (2006) ("The
    defendant's knowledge and possession may be inferred if the substance was found
    on premises under his control."); State v. Muhammed, 
    338 S.C. 22
    , 25, 28, 
    524 S.E.2d 637
    , 638, 640 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding the trial court did not err in denying
    the defendant's motion for a directed verdict when he had unrestricted access to a
    friend's house, had attached a lock to the room where the drugs were found, and
    held the key to the lock).
    AFFIRMED.1
    LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2016-UP-441

Filed Date: 10/26/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024