State v. Herrera ( 2016 )

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.
Daniel Martinez Herrera, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2014-001299
Appeal From Laurens County
Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-424
Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed October 12, 2016
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender John Harrison Strom, of Columbia,
for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Megan Harrigan Jameson, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor David Matthew Stumbo, of
Greenwood, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Daniel Martinez Herrera appeals his conviction for trafficking
marijuana and his sentence of five years' imprisonment with credit for time served.
On appeal, Herrera argues the trial court erred by (1) refusing to grant a directed
verdict when the State failed to present any evidence that the weight of the
marijuana at issue was ten pounds or more and (2) allowing expert testimony
regarding the weight of six vacuum-sealed bags of marijuana when the State failed
to establish that the methodology used to weigh the marijuana was scientifically
reliable. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
As to Issue 1: State v. Hewins, 409 S.C. 93, 102, 760 S.E.2d 814, 819 (2014) ("In
criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only." (quoting State
v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 5-6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001))); State v. Gracely, 399
S.C. 363, 371-72, 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("When reviewing the denial of a
motion for a directed verdict, [appellate courts] employ[] the same standard as the
trial court by viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party."); State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292, 625
S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the
[S]tate fails to produce evidence of the offense charged."); id. at 292-93, 625
S.E.2d at 648 ("If there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial
evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, the [appellate court]
must find the case was properly submitted to the jury."); State v. Bennett, 415 S.C.
232, 237, 781 S.E.2d 352, 354 (2016) ("Accordingly, in ruling on a directed
verdict motion where the State relies on circumstantial evidence, the [trial court]
must determine whether the evidence presented is sufficient to allow a reasonable
juror to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."); S.C. Code
Ann. § 44-53-370(e)(1)(a) (Supp. 2015) ("Any person who knowingly sells,
manufactures, cultivates, delivers, purchases, or brings into this [s]tate, or who
provides financial assistance or otherwise aids, abets, attempts, or conspires to sell,
manufacture, cultivate, deliver, purchase, or bring into this [s]tate, or who is
knowingly in actual or constructive possession or who knowingly attempts to
become in actual or constructive possession of . . . ten pounds or more of
marijuana is guilty of a felony which is known as 'trafficking in marijuana' and,
upon conviction, must be punished as follows if the quantity involved is . . . ten
pounds or more, but less than one hundred pounds . . . for a first offense, a term of
imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than ten years, no part of which
may be suspended nor probation granted, and a fine of ten thousand dollars . . . .");
State v. Mollison, 319 S.C. 41, 45, 459 S.E.2d 88, 91 (Ct. App. 1995) ("The
knowledge element may be proved circumstantially by evidence of acts,
declarations, or conduct of the accused from which an inference may be drawn that
the accused knew of the existence of the prohibited substance."); S.C. Code Ann. §
44-53-110(27)(a)-(b) (Supp. 2015) (defining "Marijuana" as "all species or variety
of the marijuana plant and all parts thereof whether growing or not" and "the seeds
of the marijuana plant," but excluding "the mature stalks of the marijuana plant or
fibers produced from these stalks . . . [and] the sterilized seed of the marijuana
plant which is incapable of germination"); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-392 (2002)
("Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, the weight of any controlled
substance referenced in this article is the weight of that substance in pure form or
any compound or mixture thereof.").
As to Issue 2: State v. Cope, 405 S.C. 317, 334-35, 748 S.E.2d 194, 203 (2013)
("The trial [court] has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of
evidence and [its] decision should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of
discretion." (quoting State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148, 154, 682 S.E.2d 892, 895
(2009))); State v. White, 382 S.C. 265, 270, 676 S.E.2d 684, 686 (2009) ("All
expert testimony must satisfy the Rule 702 criteria, and that includes the trial
court's gatekeeping function in ensuring the proposed expert testimony meets a
reliability threshold for the jury's ultimate consideration."); Rule 702, SCRE ("If
scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an
expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto
in the form of an opinion or otherwise."); State v. Martin, 391 S.C. 508, 513, 706
S.E.2d 40, 42 (Ct. App. 2011) ("Before a witness is qualified as an expert, the trial
court must find (1) the expert's testimony will assist the trier of fact, (2) the expert
possesses the requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, and
(3) . . . the expert's testimony is reliable."); White, 382 S.C. at 274, 676 S.E.2d at
688 ("The foundational reliability requirement for expert testimony does not lend
itself to a one-size-fits-all approach, for the Council[1] factors for scientific
evidence serve no useful analytical purpose when evaluating nonscientific expert
testimony.").
AFFIRMED.2
WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 20, 515 S.E.2d 508, 518 (1999).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.