State v. Hoover

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.

Archie Hoover, Appellant.

Appeal From Pickens County

D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-263

Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed April 29,
2010   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General S. Creighton Waters, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Archie Hoover appeals his conviction for
murder.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:    

1. As to whether the
trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict: State v. Cherry,
361 S.C. 588, 593, 606 S.E.2d 475, 478 (2004) (explaining a defendant is
entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to produce evidence of the
offense charged); State v. Harris, 351 S.C. 643, 653, 572 S.E.2d 267,
273 (2002) (stating if there is any direct or substantial circumstantial
evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, an appellate
court must find the case was properly submitted to the jury); State v. Hale,
284 S.C. 348, 356, 326 S.E.2d 418, 423 (Ct. App. 1985) ("It is the
function of the jury, not an appellate court, to judge the credibility of
witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony."). 

2. As to whether Hoover is entitled
to the reversal of his conviction because the State elicited improper testimony
from a witness:  State v. Peay, 321 S.C. 405, 413, 468 S.E.2d 669, 674
(Ct. App. 1996) (finding a contemporaneous objection and ruling at trial is
required to properly preserve an error for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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