State v. Mack

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD
NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED
BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Tyson Mack,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County

Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-549

Submitted October 1, 2004 – Filed October
27, 2004

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender
Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
Assistant Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, all of Columbia, and Solicitor
Cecil Kelley Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Tyson Mack appeals his second-degree
burglary conviction, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to grant him
a directed verdict.  We affirm. [1]

BACKGROUND

Officers Evans and Kearney of the Sumter
Police Department were dispatched to a sportswear store at 4:20 a.m.  When they
arrived at the store, they learned it had been broken into and clothing had
been removed.  They immediately began a search of the area and quickly located
Mack in a nearby vacant lot.  He was carrying a large trash bag, sweating, and
breathing heavily.  The officers stopped and as Evans approached, Mack dropped
the bag, which contained a large amount of clothes on hangers with the tags
still on them.  The officers then arrested Mack.  The police later showed the
clothes to the store’s owner, who identified them as his merchandise. 

DISCUSSION

Mack concedes the State presented evidence
he was guilty of receiving or possessing stolen goods and does not dispute the
sportswear store was burglarized.  However, he contends he was entitled to a
directed verdict on the burglary charge because the State failed to establish
he was the person who broke into the store.  We find the court properly denied
Mack’s motion.

In ruling on a directed verdict motion,
the trial court is concerned with the existence of evidence, rather than with
its weight.  State v. Mitchell, 341 S.C. 406, 409, 535 S.E.2d 126, 127
(2000).  “A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails
to produce any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence of the offense
charged.”  State v. Rothschild, 351 S.C. 238, 243, 569 S.E.2d 346, 348
(2002).  Where the evidence is circumstantial, the court must submit the case
to the jury if there is substantial evidence that reasonably tends to prove
the defendant’s guilt or from which guilt can be logically deduced.  State
v. Williams, 321 S.C. 327, 332, 468 S.E.2d 626, 629 (1996).  On appeal from
the denial of a directed verdict, this court reviews the evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party.  State v. Asbury, 328 S.C. 187,
194, 493 S.E.2d 349, 353 (1997). 

In State v. Shields, 217 S.C. 496, 61 S.E.2d
56 (1950), our supreme court affirmed the denial of a directed verdict on a
burglary charge where the defendant was found in possession of recently stolen
goods taken during an undisputed burglary. 

Here, as in Shields, Mack was found in possession
of recently stolen goods taken during an undisputed burglary.  The incident
occurred in the very early hours of the morning, and the officers responding
to the complaint arrived at the scene quickly.  They spotted Mack approximately
a block away from the burglarized business and the record contains no evidence
any other individual was in the vicinity at that time.  When the officers approached
Mack, he dropped the large bag he was carrying, which contained the stolen clothes,
still on hangers and bearing the store’s tags.  Viewed in the light most favorable
to the State, this constitutes substantial evidence from which Mack’s guilt
could be deduced.  Thus the trial court properly submitted the charge to the
jury.

AFFIRMED.

Stilwell, Beatty, and Short, JJ., concur.

[1]         We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule
215, SCACR.