State v. Maner

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.
Derek Maner, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2009-117006
Appeal From Allendale County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-550
Heard September 10, 2012 – Filed October 10, 2012
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia,
for Appellant,
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson; Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh; Assistant Deputy
Attorney Donald J. Zelenka; Senior Assistant Attorney
General Melody Jane Brown;; all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Beaufort, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Derek Maner appeals his conviction for murder, arguing the trial
court erred in (1) allowing Investigator Silvaggio to testify as a lay witness
regarding his opinion on Erika Bradley's disappearance and (2) failing to direct a
verdict because the State presented no direct or substantial circumstantial evidence
of corpus delicti. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the
following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in allowing Investigator Silvaggio to testify
based on his investigation: Rule 602, SCRE ("A witness may not testify to a
matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding the witness
has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge
may, but need not, consist of the witness' own testimony."); State v. Williams,
321 S.C. 455, 464, 469 S.E.2d 49, 54 (1996) ("A natural inference based on
stated facts is not opinion evidence. Where the distinction between fact and
opinion is blurred, it is often best to leave the matter to the discretion of the trial
judge.").
2. As to whether the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict: State v. Weston,
367 S.C. 279, 292-93, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) (holding if there is any direct
evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove
the guilt of the accused, the Court must find the case was properly submitted to
the jury); State v. Owens, 293 S.C. 161, 168, 359 S.E.2d 275, 278 (1987)
(finding circumstantial evidence surrounding the victim's sudden disappearance,
considered with the unlikelihood of victim's voluntary departure as shown by
personal habits and relationships, sufficiently established the corpus delicti of
murder or that the victim is dead by the criminal act of another).
AFFIRMED.
SHORT, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.