State v. Goodwin

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.

Leonard Goodwin, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-193507

Appeal From Charleston County
Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-448
Heard September 10, 2013 – Filed December 11, 2013

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek,
Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, and Appellate
Defender Breen Richard Stevens, all of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliot, and Senior
Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of
Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Leonard Goodwin appeals his conviction for murder, arguing the
circuit court erred in failing to: (1) properly charge the jury on the relationship of
circumstantial evidence to the determination of guilt; (2) grant a directed verdict
based on a lack of substantial circumstantial evidence of Goodwin's guilt; and (3)
suppress certain prejudicial photographs under Rule 403, SCRE. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to Goodwin's argument regarding the jury charge: State v. Brandt, 393 S.C.
526, 549, 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) (holding the circuit court "'is required to
charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina'"(quoting Sheppard v.
State, 357 S.C. 646, 665, 594 S.E.2d 462, 472 (2004))); State v. Belcher, 385 S.C.
597, 611, 685 S.E.2d 802, 809 (2009) ("Errors, including erroneous jury
instructions, are subject to harmless error analysis."); State v. Wharton, 381 S.C.
209, 213, 672 S.E.2d 786, 788 (2009) ("A [circuit] court's decision regarding jury
charges will not be reversed where the charges, as a whole, properly charged the
law to be applied."); State v. Logan, 405 S.C. 83, 94 n.8, 747 S.E.2d 444, 449 n.8
(2013) (finding a jury charge containing identical language as presented in the
instant case "as a whole, properly conveyed the applicable law" and "[t]hus, any
conceivable error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt").

2. As to Goodwin's argument regarding the denial of his directed verdict motion:
State v. Lollis, 343 S.C. 580, 583, 541 S.E.2d 254, 256 (2001) ("On appeal from
the denial of a directed verdict, this [c]ourt must view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the State."); State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 97, 544 S.E.2d 30,
36 (2001) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to
produce evidence of the offense charged."); State v. Brown, 402 S.C. 119, 124, 740
S.E.2d 493, 495 (2013) ("However, if there is any direct or substantial
circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, an
appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to the jury." (emphasis
added)); see also State v. Robinson, 360 S.C. 187, 194, 600 S.E.2d 100, 104 (Ct.
App. 2004) ("Flight from prosecution is admissible as evidence of guilt." (quoting
State v. Pagan, 357 S.C. 132, 140, 591 S.E.2d 646, 650 (Ct. App. 2004))); State v.
Crawford, 362 S.C. 627, 636, 608 S.E.2d 886, 891 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The critical
factor to the admissibility of evidence of flight is whether the totality of the
evidence creates an inference that the defendant had knowledge that he was being
sought by the authorities."); State v. Al-Amin, 353 S.C. 405, 413, 578 S.E.2d 32,
36-37 (Ct. App. 2003) (considering, among other factors, the accused party's flight
from the scene in determining whether substantial circumstantial evidence was
presented to warrant submission of the case to the jury).

3. As to Goodwin's argument regarding the failure to suppress certain photographs
under Rule 403, SCRE: State v. Dickerson, 395 S.C. 101, 116, 716 S.E.2d 895,
903 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the circuit court's discretion and
will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion."); State v. Myers,
359 S.C. 40, 48, 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) (declining to reverse for error under
Rule 403 because the error was harmless); State v. Edwards, 194 S.C. 410, 412, 10
S.E.2d 587, 588 (1940) (holding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when
it admitted graphic photographs of a victim's decomposed corpse when the
photographs were already testified to in detail by witnesses at trial.).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.