State v. Quick

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.

Tyrone Quick, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000540

Appeal From Marlboro County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-315
Submitted June 1, 2018 – Filed July 11, 2018

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant
Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant
Attorney General Sherrie Butterbaugh, of Columbia; and
Solicitor William Benjamin Rogers, Jr., of Bennettsville,
all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006)
("When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with
the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight."); id. ("A defendant is
entitled to a directed verdict when the [S]tate fails to produce evidence of the
offense charged."); id. ("When reviewing a denial of a directed verdict, this [c]ourt
views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
[S]tate."); id. at 292-93, 625 S.E.2d at 648 ("If there is any direct evidence or any
substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the
accused, [this court] must find the case was properly submitted to the jury."
(emphasis added)); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-10 (2015) ("'Murder' is the killing of
any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied."); State v. Kelsey,
331 S.C. 50, 62, 502 S.E.2d 63, 69 (1998) ("'Malice' is the wrongful intent to injure
another and indicates a wicked or depraved spirit intent on doing wrong."); State v.
Knoten, 347 S.C. 296, 303, 555 S.E.2d 391, 395 (2001) ("Even when a person's
passion has been sufficiently aroused by a legally adequate provocation, if at the
time of the killing those passions had cooled or a sufficiently reasonable time had
elapsed so that the passions of the ordinary reasonable person would have cooled,
the killing would be murder and not manslaughter."); State v. Bennett, 415 S.C.
232, 237, 781 S.E.2d 352, 354 (2016) ("[A]lthough the jury must consider
alternative hypotheses, the court must concern itself solely with the existence or
non-existence of evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer guilt. This
objective test is founded upon reasonableness.").1

AFFIRMED. 2

SHORT, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

1
We find the issue of whether the circuit court applied an incorrect standard when
ruling on Quick's directed verdict motion is unpreserved. See State v. Dunbar, 356
S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be
preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the
trial [court]. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be
considered on appeal.").
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.