State v. Green

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.

Al Martinez Green, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000603

Appeal From Lancaster County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-205
Heard April 12, 2016 – Filed May 11, 2016

AFFIRMED

Jane Hawthorne Merrill, of Hawthorne Merrill Law,
LLC, of Greenwood, and Chief Appellate Defender
Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General W. Edgar Salter, III, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Randy E. Newman, Jr., of
Lancaster, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Al Martinez Green appeals his conviction for murder, arguing
the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Phillips,
Op. No. 27607 (S.C. Sup. Ct. refiled Apr. 20, 2016) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 16 at
20, 24) ("In reviewing a motion for directed verdict, the trial court is concerned
with the existence of evidence, not with its weight."); id. at 25 ("When the
evidence presented merely raises a suspicion of the accused's guilt, the trial court
should not refuse to grant the directed verdict motion."); id. ("However, the trial
court must submit the case to the jury if there is 'any substantial evidence which
reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused, or from which his guilt may be
fairly and logically deduced.'" (quoting State v. Mitchell, 341 S.C. 406, 409, 535
S.E.2d 126, 127 (2000))); id. at 46 (stating that when ruling on a motion for a
directed verdict, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the State); State v. Larmand, 415 S.C. 23, 32, 780 S.E.2d 892, 896 (2015), reh'g
granted, (Dec. 23, 2015), reh'g denied, (Feb. 11, 2016) ("[O]ur duty is not to weigh
the plausibility of the parties' competing explanations. Rather, we must assess
whether, in the light most favorable to the State, there was substantial
circumstantial evidence from which the jury could infer [the defendant]'s guilt.");
State v. Bennett, 415 S.C. 232, 237, 781 S.E.2d 352, 354 (2016) ("Therefore,
although the jury must consider alternative hypotheses, the court must concern
itself solely with the existence or non-existence of evidence from which a jury
could reasonably infer guilt. This objective test is founded upon reasonableness.
Accordingly, in ruling on a directed verdict motion where the State relies on
circumstantial evidence, the court must determine whether the evidence presented
is sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt."); State v. Pearson, Op. No. 27612 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Mar. 23,
2016) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 12 at 13, 23) (reversing this court's reversal of the
denial of a directed motion, finding this court "weighed the evidence and
erroneously required the State, at the directed verdict stage, to present evidence
sufficient to exclude every other hypothesis of [the defendant]'s guilt").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, A.C.J., and KONDUROS and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.