State v. Scott

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.

Larry Scott, Appellant.

Appeal From Williamsburg County

James E. Lockemy, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-120

Submitted March 2, 2009 – Filed March 5,
2009   

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney Michelle J. Parsons, all of Columbia; Solicitor C. Kelly Jackson, of
Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Larry Scott appeals his convictions and
sentences for armed robbery, possession of a weapon during a violent crime, and
kidnapping, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed
verdict.  At trial, the State produced the following evidence:  (1) direct
evidence showing Mary Ann Wall was the female assailant who committed the
robbery along with a male assailant; (2) testimony showing Scott was in a
relationship with Wall, lived with her, and was with her "ninety percent
of the time;" (3) a watch recovered from Scott and Wall's residence similar
to the one worn by the male assailant; and (4) testimony from a visual information
specialist highlighting several similarities between the surveillance video
which captured a portion of the male assailant's face and a photograph of Scott
taken a few days after the robbery.  Viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the State, we hold there was substantial circumstantial evidence
from which a jury could logically deduce Scott was the male assailant who
committed the robbery.  See State
v. Cherry, 361 S.C. 588, 594, 606
S.E.2d 475, 478 (2004) (stating a trial court considering a motion for a
directed verdict is not required to
find that the evidence infers guilt to the exclusion of any other reasonable
hypothesis, and instead has a duty to submit a case to the jury
if there is any substantial circumstantial evidence which reasonably tends to
prove the guilt of the accused, or from which his guilt may be fairly and
logically deduced). 

AFFIRMED. [1]

HUFF,
WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. 

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