State v. Thompson

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.

Taurus Lamare Thompson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212659

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-228
Submitted March 1, 2014 – Filed June 18, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, both of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Bailey, 368 S.C. 39, 43 n.4, 626 S.E.2d 898, 900 n.4 (Ct. App.
2006) ("If a defendant presents evidence after the denial of his directed verdict
motion at the close of the State's case, he must make another directed verdict
motion at the close of all evidence in order to appeal the sufficiency of the
evidence."); State v. Harry, 321 S.C. 273, 277, 468 S.E.2d 76, 79 (Ct. App. 1996)
("A motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the [State's] case is not
sufficient to preserve error unless renewed at the close of all the evidence, because
once the defense has come forward with its proof, the propriety of a directed
verdict can only be tested in terms of all the evidence.") (citation omitted).1

AFFIRMED.2

FEW, C.J., SHORT, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

1
Appellant's reliance on Norell Forest Products v. H & S Lumber Co., 308 S.C.
95, 417 S.E.2d 96 (Ct. App. 1992), rev'd on other grounds, 310 S.C. 368, 426
S.E.2d 800 (1993), is misplaced, as Norell is a civil case in which this court's
holding was based in part on Rule 52(b) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil
Procedure.
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.