State v. Hepburn

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Samuel Hepburn,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Chesterfield County

Sidney T. Floyd, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-632

Submitted October 6, 2003 – Filed October
22, 2003

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka,
all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jay E. Hodge, Jr., of Cheraw, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Samuel Hepburn appeals his
murder conviction arguing he should have been granted a directed verdict because
there was no evidence he acted with malice aforethought.  We affirm pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities:  State v. Fennell, 340
S.C. 266, 270, 531 S.E.2d 512, 514 (2000) (“In reviewing the denial of a motion
for a directed verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable
to the State.  If there is any direct evidence or substantial circumstantial
evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, the appellate
court must find that the case was properly submitted to the jury.”); S.C. Code
Ann. § 16-3-10 (2003) (providing murder is “the killing of any person with malice
aforethought, either express or implied”); State v. Johnson, 291 S.C.
127, 128, 352 S.E.2d 480, 481 (1987) (noting malice “has been defined as the
wrongful intent to injure another and indicates a wicked or depraved spirit
intent on doing wrong”); State v. Campbell, 287 S.C. 377, 379, 339 S.E.2d
109, 109 (1985) (holding malice may be implied from use of a deadly weapon);
State v. Ballington, 346 S.C. 262, 272, 551 S.E.2d 280, 285 (Ct. App.
2001) (holding that although malice must be aforethought, malice is not required
to exist for any appreciable amount of time before the act is committed).
[1]

AFFIRMED.  

STILWELL, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

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