State v. Newman

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.

Benjamin J. Newman, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-213383

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-034
Submitted December 1, 2013 – Filed January 29, 2014

AFFIRMED

Robert T. Williams, Sr. and Benjamin Allen Stitely, both
of Williams, Hendrix, Steigner & Brink, PA, of
Lexington, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Newman's motion to suppress the
drug evidence: State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 111, 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004)
("When reviewing a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case, an appellate court
must affirm the trial [court's] ruling if there is any evidence to support the ruling.");
State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 443, 706 S.E.2d 324, 327 (2011) ("Under the 'plain
view' exception to the warrant requirement, objects falling within the plain view of
a law enforcement officer who is rightfully in a position to view the objects are
subject to seizure and may be introduced as evidence."); State v. Abdullah, 357
S.C. 344, 351, 592 S.E.2d 344, 348 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting law enforcement may
enter a dwelling "to prevent a suspect from fleeing or where there is a risk of
danger to police or others inside or outside [the] dwelling").

2. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Newman's motion for a directed
verdict: State v. Williams, 346 S.C. 424, 430, 552 S.E.2d 54, 57 (Ct. App. 2001)
("In reviewing the denial of a motion for a directed verdict, the evidence must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the State. If there is any direct evidence or
substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the
accused, the appellate court must find that the case was properly submitted to the
jury."); id. ("Where contraband materials are found on premises under the control
of the accused, this fact in and of itself gives rise to an inference of knowledge and
possession which may be sufficient to carry the case to the jury.").

AFFIRMED.1

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

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