Opinion ID: 1274230
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Grant a Directed Verdict Based on a Lack of Evidence

Text: Defendant argues the trial court erred by not directing a verdict because the State failed to place him at the scene of the crime or show his participation in the killing of the Victim. We agree. The trial court has a duty to submit the case to the jury where the evidence is circumstantial, if there is substantial circumstantial evidence which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused or from which his guilt may be fairly and logically deduced. State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 327, 468 S.E.2d 626 (1996). The trial judge should grant a directed verdict motion when the evidence merely raises a suspicion that the accused is guilty. State v. Irvin, 270 S.C. 539, 243 S.E.2d 195 (1978). In reviewing the appeal of a refusal to grant a directed verdict of not guilty, this Court must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Williams, 321 S.C. at 332-33, 468 S.E.2d at 629. In this case, the State failed to meet the any substantial evidence standard. Most significantly, the State's evidence failed to place either defendant inside the apartment. The Solicitor himself summed up the State's failure of proof by confessing to the trial judge we don't know which person actually held [Victim's] head in that pan of water and Your Honor, the whole point is we don't know if they acted in concert. Put another way, unlike the usual accomplice liability case or aiding and abetting situation, here the State had no proof that either defendant held Victim's head under water and the State had no proof that the defendants were working together to bring about the Victim's death. Taken in a light most favorable to its position, the State's has shown that a car resembling the one in possession of the Defendant was parked at the Victim's apartment complex the night the murder was committed. There is no evidence (such as a license tag number) that the black car was actually Bhagwandin's black mustang. The State also presented no evidence that both defendants arrived at the apartment complex in that car or that either defendant entered Victim's apartment. Furthermore, there is no evidence establishing the death occurred during the time the black car was in front of the building. This case is similar to State v. Schrock, 283 S.C. 129, 322 S.E.2d 450 (1984), in which this Court reversed the denial of a directed verdict in a murder conviction. In Schrock, the State presented evidence the defendant was in the area of the murders and that footprints at the scene of the crime were similar to footprints found in the area in which Schrock admitted he had been walking. In this case, the black car seen at the apartment is not identified as Bhagwandin's car. Like the footprints in Schrock, the possibility that it was the same car, without any other evidence placing the defendants at the scene, is not enough evidence to place Defendant inside Victim's apartment.