THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
Joseph Holman, Appellant.
Appeal From Bamberg County
William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-353
Submitted May 12, 2003 – Filed June 3, 2003
Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson and Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mitchell, 341 S.C. 406, 409, 535 S.E.2d 126, 127 (2000) (holding the trial court is concerned with the existence of evidence, not with its weight, in deciding whether to grant a motion for a directed verdict); State v. Burdette, 335 S.C. 34, 46, 515 S.E.2d 525, 531 (1999) (holding an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State in an appeal from a denial of a directed verdict); State v. Pinckney, 339 S.C. 346, 349, 529 S.E.2d 526, 527 (2000) (holding if there is any direct evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence “that reasonably tends to prove the defendant’s guilt or from which his guilt may be logically deduced,” the appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to the jury); see State v. Prince, 316 S.C. 57, 65, 447 S.E.2d 177, 182 (1993) (holding one witness’ testimony that defendant had solicited him to hire a hit man was sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for a directed verdict on a conspiracy charge); State v. Scott, 330 S.C. 125, 128-32, 497 S.E.2d 735, 737-39 (Ct. App. 1998) (holding the trial court’s denial of a motion for a directed verdict was proper because the jury reasonably could have concluded defendant was guilty of breach of trust with fraudulent intent based on the evidence presented, which included the testimony of several witnesses); State v. Creech, 314 S.C. 76, 82-83, 441 S.E.2d 635, 638-39 (Ct. App. 1993) (holding the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on the charge of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature because the testimony of several police officers was “more than sufficient” to submit the case to the jury).
GOOLSBY, HOWARD, JJ., and BEATTY, Acting Judge, concur.
1 Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.