State v. Ford

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.

William E. Ford,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Dorchester County

Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-632

Submitted December 1, 2004 – Filed
December 15, 2004

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Robert Douglas Robbins, of Summerville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  William Ford appeals from his
convictions for burglary and kidnapping, arguing the trial court erred in refusing
to grant a directed verdict because the State failed to present substantial
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the offenses.  We affirm. [1]   

FACTS 

On January 30, 2002, at approximately 9:30 p.m. in
Knightsville, South Carolina, Ford and a friend, John Long, were riding in
a sport utility vehicle with the headlights off.  Long was driving the vehicle. 
Deputy Randy Botten was traveling in the opposite direction when the vehicle
ran him off the road.  Botten turned his car around and activated his blue
lights to conduct a traffic stop.  The vehicle did not stop and instead increased
its speed to about 80 to 85 miles per hour.  Botten followed the vehicle until
it turned into a driveway on Central Avenue, near Orangeburg Road, and stopped
behind a shed.  Ford and Long jumped out of the vehicle and fled.  Area residents
found Long in a yard behind the Countryside Mobile Home Park and he was arrested. 
Ford ran to Elaine Mizell’s house on the corner of Central Avenue and Orangeburg
Road and stole her brown 1982 Toyota truck.  At 10:47 p.m., a trooper spotted
Ford driving Mizell’s truck with the headlights off and traveling 85 miles
per hour in a 25 mile an hour zone. 

At approximately 9:50 p.m., at 953 Orangeburg Road,
the home of David and Jennifer Stover, a man entered their house and carried
their daughter, Trinity, outside.  David thought the man was his wife, so
he went outside to see if she needed help carrying groceries into the house. 
Once outside, David did not see his wife’s car, but did notice that the interior
light was on inside his Mustang.  David then heard Trinity screaming and saw
her with a white male.  The man tried to run, but fell over a picnic table
and dropped Trinity.  The man then ran towards the woods.  David called 911
and his brother-in-law, Donald Short. 

As Deputy Joli Murray was responding to David’s 911
call, a small brown pickup truck drove out of the Countryside Mobile Home
Park and nearly hit her car head-on.  She testified the truck was driving
erratically.  Short also drove to the Stovers’ house after receiving the phone
call from David.  After leaving the Stovers’ house, Short drove around looking
for a white male and noticed a white male standing next to a small dark Toyota
truck, looking toward the Stovers’ residence.  When he turned in to ask the
man what he was doing, the man jumped into the truck.  Short backed into the
truck to stop it, but the truck managed to escape.  Short then followed the
truck, which did not have its headlights on and was traveling at about 80
miles per hour.  Trooper Curtis Burns also pursued the truck until it pulled
into a yard.  The driver exited the truck and ran into the woods.  Burns followed
the man, who was identified as Ford, and caught him in the woods.  The truck
belonged to Mizell.  While Ford was at the detention center he took a breathalyzer
test, which determined he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of
the collision.

The police found footprint impressions in the Mizell’s
and the Stovers’ yards, so officers took Ford’s boots from him at the detention
center for evidence.  The impressions were consistent with the general design
of Ford’s boot’s outsole.  SLED Agent Steven Derrick testified Ford’s boots
or another boot with the same combined class characteristics could have left
the impressions.  However, he also testified that Ford’s boot is unique and
is sold by Sears exclusively.  Tim Stephenson, an expert in tracking, followed
the tracks from the picnic table near the Stover’s house to Mizell’s backyard
where her truck was parked.  Stephenson testified the person took the path
of least resistance, which is consistent with a person fleeing from the police. 
Stephenson also testified the tracks indicated that the person was unfamiliar
with the area and was in a hurry.  Additionally, he stated it takes about
7 minutes and 19 seconds to walk the distance from the picnic table to Mizell’s
truck when walking at a rate of 2.9 miles an hour.

Ford moved for a directed verdict at the conclusion
of the State’s case, arguing there was no eyewitness testimony or physical
evidence that placed Ford in the Stovers’ house.  The court denied the motion,
finding there was sufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury.  The same
motion was renewed at the close of the evidence and again denied.            

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a denial of a motion
for directed verdict, we use 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.  Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279, 299, 536 S.E.2d
408, 418 (Ct. App. 2000).  “When a motion for a directed verdict is made
in a criminal case where the State relies exclusively on circumstantial
evidence, the lower court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence
of evidence, not with its weight.”  State v. Mitchell, 341 S.C. 406,
409, 535 S.E.2d 126, 127 (2000).  The trial judge 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.”  State v. Edwards, 298 S.C 272, 275, 379 S.E.2d
888, 889 (1989).  We will reverse the trial court only when there is no
evidence to support the ruling below.  Creech v. South Carolina Wildlife
& Marine Resources Dep’t, 328 S.C. 24, 29, 491 S.E.2d 571, 573 (1997).    

LAW/ANALYSIS

Ford argues the trial court erred
in refusing to grant a directed verdict because the State failed to present
substantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of burglary
and kidnapping.  We disagree.

The State’s evidence against Ford was entirely
circumstantial. In such cases, in order to survive a motion for directed
verdict, our supreme court has held the State must present substantial
circumstantial evidence that “reasonably tends to prove the guilt of
the accused or from which guilt may be fairly and logically deduced.” 
Edwards, 298 S.C at 275, 379 S.E.2d at 889. 

The State presented substantial circumstantial
evidence that reasonably tended to prove Ford entered the Stovers’ home
and abducted their child, and from which a jury could fairly and logically
deduce his guilt of those crimes.  An expert testified that tracks lead
from the site where Ford stole Mizell’s Toyota to the picnic table where
he allegedly fell and dropped Trinity.  Another expert testified that
footprint impressions found by the Stovers’ Mustang and behind Mizell’s
house were consistent with Ford’s boots.  Additionally, Short and a
trooper both saw a truck consistent with Mizell’s stolen Toyota within
minutes of the time Ford allegedly walked from the Stovers’ home to
Mizell’s home and Ford was apprehended after he exited Mizell’s truck. 
See State v. Cherry, Op. No. 25902 (S.C.Sup.Ct. filed
Nov. 29, 2004) (Shearouse Adv.Sh. No. 46 at 29); cf. Mitchell,
341 S.C. at 409, 535 S.E.2d at 127.  The evidence supports the inference
that, while fleeing from the police and in need of transportation, Ford
opened the door to the Stovers’ Mustang, as indicated by the lit interior
light, entered the Stovers’ home looking for the keys and abducted Trinity
Stover.  Thus, there was ample evidence to warrant submitting the case
to the jury.

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, STILWELL, and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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