State v. Heath, David

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.

David Heath, Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County

Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-475

Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed October
28, 2010

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H.
Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Julie M.
Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor James Strom Thurmond, Jr., of Aiken, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: David Heath appeals his conviction for
contributing to the delinquency of a minor, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a
directed verdict.  We affirm.[1]

 "When ruling on a
motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with the existence
or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight." State v. Weston, 367
S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006).  A reviewing court must uphold the
denial of a directed verdict where "there is any direct evidence or
substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of
the accused . . . ."  Id.  The reviewing court
views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
the State. Id.  Under section 16-17-490 of the South Carolina Code
Annotated (2003), "It shall be unlawful for any person over eighteen years
of age to knowingly and willfully encourage, aid or cause or to do any act
which shall cause or influence a minor: (1) To violate any law
. . . ."  Moreover, "It is
unlawful for a person under the age of twenty-one to . . . consume
. . . alcoholic liquors."  S.C. Code. Ann. § 63-19-2450(A) (2010).

Viewed in the light most
favorable to the State, the State presented direct evidence that Heath gave
alcohol to a minor.  The evidence established Heath knew the minor was
fourteen.  The minor testified that she drank from a white, Styrofoam cup filled
with a "brown drink" containing alcohol.  A public safety officer
found a white, Styrofoam cup in an area where the minor told the officer the
cup would be, and a detective testified that the cup "had the odor of an
alcoholic beverage."  Moreover, the State presented substantial
circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove Heath knowingly and
willfully influenced the minor to drink from the cup.  Heath brought the cup
from a house and gave the cup to the minor.  Accordingly, the trial court
properly denied Heath’s motion for a directed verdict. 

AFFIRMED.

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

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