State v. Roberts

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Donald Roberts,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Horry County

Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-444

Heard May 14, 2003 – Filed June 26,
2003   

AFFIRMED

Tara Dawn Shurling, of Columbia; for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster; Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh; Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson;
Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, of Columbia; Solicitor
John Gregory Hembree, of Conway; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Donald Roberts appeals his convictions
for kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct, and possession of a firearm by a person
convicted of a violent crime.  We affirm.

We affirm Roberts’s convictions pursuant to Rule
220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Perry, 279
S.C. 539, 540, 309 S.E.2d 9, 10 (1983) (holding that a trial court reviewing
a motion for a directed verdict is concerned only with the existence of evidence,
not its weight); State v. Butler, 277 S.C. 452, 457, 290 S.E.2d 1, 4
(1982) (holding that the trial court reviews the evidence in the light most
favorable to the State and will deny a motion for a directed verdict if any
evidence, direct or circumstantial, tends to prove the guilt of the accused),
overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45,
406 S.E.2d 315 (1991); State v. Mathis, 287 S.C. 589, 593, 340 S.E.2d
538, 541 (1986) (citing S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-651(h) (1976)) (holding that evidence
of intrusion is required to prove criminal sexual battery); State v. Burroughs,
328 S.C. 489, 495-96, 492 S.E.2d 408, 411 (Ct. App. 1997) (holding that 1) a
defendant’s denial at trial to even having consensual sex with the victim creates
a credibility issue between his and the victim’s version of events and 2) such
tests of credibility are not normally properly disposed of by directed verdict,
but are resolved by the jury); see, e.g., State v. Ham, 268 S.C.
340, 342, 233 S.E.2d 698, 698 (1977) (“Where the determination of guilt is dependent
upon the credibility of the witnesses, a motion for a directed verdict is properly
refused.”), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1019 (1978); State v. Rosemond,
335 S.C. 593, 596, 518 S.E.2d 588, 589-90 (1999) (holding that the relevance,
materiality, and admissibility of photographs are matters within the trial court’s
discretion and an appellate court will not disturb their introduction absent
a showing of abuse of discretion); State v. Tucker, 324 S.C. 155, 167,
478 S.E.2d 260, 266 (1996) (holding that a photograph should be excluded only
if it is calculated to arouse the jury’s sympathy or prejudice or is irrelevant
or unnecessary to substantiate facts; however, if the photographs serve to corroborate
testimony, it is not an abuse of discretion to admit them); State v. Clifton,
302 S.C. 431, 433, 396 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1990) (holding that a magistrate deciding
whether to issue a search warrant must make a common sense decision, under the
totality of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit (including the veracity
of the person supplying the information and the basis of her knowledge), whether
a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place
(citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)), overruled on other
grounds by Brightman v. State, 336 S.C. 348, 520 S.E.2d 614 (1999);
State v. Crane, 296 S.C. 336, 339, 372 S.E.2d 587, 588 (1988) (holding
that a magistrate’s probable cause determination is entitled to substantial
deference so that a reviewing court must only decide whether the magistrate
had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed), accord
Clifton, 320 S.C. at 433, 396 S.E.2d at 832; and State v. Corns,
310 S.C. 546, 426 S.E.2d 324 (Ct. App. 1992) (upholding a warrant based on an
affidavit whose factual basis was sixty days old and noting that in looking
at the totality of the circumstances a magistrate may consider the characteristics,
including the consumable and incriminating nature, of the items sought in the
warrant). 

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY and HOWARD, JJ., and
BEATTY, A.J., concur.