CourtListener 10137483•State v. Berggrum
Texte intégral
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.
Raymond Robert Berggrum,
Appellant.
Appeal From Pickens County
Henry F. Floyd, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-218
Submitted February 9, 2004 Filed March
30, 2004
AFFIRMED
Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda P. Hagler, of Columbia,
for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor
Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.
BEATTY, J.: Raymond Robert Berggrum was
convicted of second-degree burglary and sentenced to ten years imprisonment.
Berggrum appeals, arguing the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a
directed verdict. We affirm.
FACTS
Officer Steve Stewart responded to a
call that a liquor store had been burglarized in the middle of the night. When
Stewart arrived, he discovered glass on the inside of the door, blood on the
door, and two broken bottles of Wild Turkey. A second officer, Greg Turner,
arrived at the scene and noted a Wild Turkey cup similar to the ones in the
liquor stores display was on the ground outside the store and had blood on
it.
After canvassing the area around the store, Stewart
and Turner went to the Days Inn hotel across the street from the store. They
questioned the hotels night clerk to see if he had noticed anything suspicious.
After speaking with the clerk, the officers went to Room 109, where they noticed
blood on the outside of the door. Berggrum answered the door and allowed the
officers to enter. After the officers noticed a bottle of Wild Turkey on the
floor, they obtained consent to search the rest of the room. The officers subsequently
found a second bottle of Wild Turkey and another Wild Turkey cup. [1] They also noticed that Berggrum had two fresh
scratches on his arm and there was blood on the bedding.
Berggrum gave a statement to Stewart and Turner
after he was advised of his Miranda
[2] rights. The statement contained three different versions of events.
Initially, Berggrum stated two men came to his hotel room and gave him two bottles
of Wild Turkey, after which they pointed a gun to his head and told him he owed
them $2000. Then Berggrum stated the liquor store owner gave him the liquor
with the understanding that he would pay later. Finally, Berggrum said he bought
the liquor.
At the close of the States case, defense counsel
moved for a directed verdict, arguing there was no substantial circumstantial
evidence from which a jury may fairly and logically find or render a verdict.
The trial judge denied the motion, and Berggrum was subsequently found guilty
of second-degree burglary. However, after rendering the verdict, the jury foreman
stated, [w]e were very dissatisfied with the evidence even though we did return
with a guilty verdict. We would let it be known. Based in large part upon
the foremans comment, Berggrum moved for a new trial, which was denied.
LAW/ANALYSIS
Berggrum argues the trial judge erred
in denying his motions for directed verdict and a new trial because there was
insufficient evidence of guilt. We do not agree.
On a motion for a directed verdict
in a criminal case, the trial court is concerned with the existence or non-existence
of evidence, not its weight. State v. Morgan, 282 S.C. 409, 411, 319
S.E.2d 335, 336 (1984). In reviewing a refusal to grant a directed verdict,
the appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
State and determine whether there is any direct or substantial circumstantial
evidence that reasonably tends to prove the defendant's guilt or from which
his guilt may be logically deduced. State v. Pinckney, 339 S.C. 346,
349, 529 S.E.2d 526, 527 (2000). If the State presents any evidence which
reasonably tends to prove the defendants guilt, or from which the defendants
guilt could be fairly and logically deduced, the case must go to the jury.
State v. Poindexter, 314 S.C. 490, 493, 431 S.E.2d 254, 255-56 (1993).
At trial, the State presented substantial
circumstantial evidence to support the guilty verdict. Berggrums hotel room
was located across the street from the burglarized liquor store. Four bottles
of Wild Turkey were stolen from the liquor store and police found a total of
four bottles of Wild Turkey between the liquor store and Berggrums hotel room.
Police also found a Wild Turkey promotional cup similar to those in the Wild
Turkey display at the liquor store in Berggrums hotel room. Further, there
was blood at the liquor store, blood on Berggrums hotel room door, blood on
his hotel bedding, and two fresh scratches on his arm. In addition to this
circumstantial evidence, Officer Turner testified as to the statement Berggrum
made after his arrest. After Berggrum was read his Miranda rights, he
gave three conflicting statements to police about how he came to have two bottles
of Wild Turkey and a Wild Turkey cup in his hotel room. Viewing the States
evidence as a whole, we find the State presented substantial circumstantial
evidence of Berggrums guilt.
CONCLUSION
We find the trial judge did not err in denying
Berggrums motion for a directed verdict and submitting the case to the jury.
See, e.g., State v. McGowan, 347 S.C. 618, 622, 557 S.E.2d
657, 659 (2001) (holding that 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). Accordingly,
Berggrums conviction and sentence are
AFFIRMED.
HEARN, C.J., and ANDERSON, J., concur.
[1] The liquor storeowner subsequently verified that four bottles of
Wild Turkey were missing from the store.
[2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed.
2d 694 (1966).
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.