State v. John A. Webb (2)

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, Appellant,

v.

John Alexander Webb, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2020-000081

Appeal From Horry County
Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-059
Submitted November 1, 2022 – Filed February 15, 2023

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch,
Jr., both of Columbia, for Appellant.

Lacey Marie Thompson, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: The State appeals the trial court's decision to grant John
Alexander Webb's motion in arrest of judgment. On appeal, the State argues the
trial court erred in granting Webb's motion because it was used to challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence as opposed to the validity of the indictment, and in
subsequently vacating the jury's verdicts of guilty and entering a verdict of not
guilty on each charge.

Because the trial court relied on the sufficiency of the State's evidence against
Webb, we reverse the trial court's order granting Webb's motion in arrest of
judgment and remand for consideration of his motion for a new trial pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Taylor, 348 S.C. 152,
160, 558 S.E.2d 917, 920 (Ct. App. 2001), aff'd, 355 S.C. 392, 585 S.E.2d 303
(2003) ("A 'motion for arrest of judgment' is a postverdict motion made to prevent
the entry of a judgment where the charging document is insufficient or the court
lacked jurisdiction to try the matter."); id. at 159, 558 S.E.2d at 920 ("Our courts
have recognized the authority of a trial court to grant a verdict in arrest of
judgment to prevent entry of judgment on the insufficiency of the indictment or
some other fatal defect appearing on the face of the record."); State v. Follin, 352
S.C. 235, 259, 573 S.E.2d 812, 824 (Ct. App. 2002) ("However, the defendant may
not move for a verdict in arrest of judgment based on the insufficiency of the
evidence to support the charges in the indictment."); id. at 259, 573 S.E.2d at 825
("[W]hen ruling on a motion in arrest of judgment, the trial court is limited to
rectifying trial errors, and cannot make a redetermination of the credibility and
weight of the evidence." (alteration in original) (quoting 21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal
Law § 700 (1998))); Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Cnty. of Kent, Mich., 510 U.S. 355, 364
(1994) ("A cross-petition is required . . . when the respondent seeks to alter the
judgment below." (citations omitted)); Commercial Credit Loans, Inc. v. Riddle,
334 S.C. 176, 187, 512 S.E.2d 123, 129 (Ct. App. 1999) (declining to address an
issue raised in the respondent's brief when the respondent failed to appeal the trial
court's order); Rule 203(c), SCACR (detailing the proper procedure for filing a
cross-appeal).

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 1

WILLIAMS, C.J., THOMAS, J., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

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