Opinion ID: 2110976
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the trial judge properly deny Appellant's directed verdict motion and motion for a new trial?

Text: Appellant argues the circuit court erred in affirming the municipal court's denial of his directed verdict motion. Specifically, Appellant argues the City presented no evidence that he violated any subsection of the ordinance. We agree as to subsections (1), (2), (4), and (5). A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to produce evidence of the offense charged. State v. Parris, 363 S.C. 477, 481, 611 S.E.2d 501, 503 (2005). In reviewing a motion for directed verdict, the trial judge is concerned with the existence of the evidence, not with its weight. Id. at 481, 611 S.E.2d at 502-03. On appeal from the denial of a directed verdict, an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Id. at 481, 611 S.E.2d at 503. If there is any direct evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, the Court must find the case was properly submitted to the jury. Id. The circuit court affirmed the municipal court's denial of Appellant's directed verdict motion, finding the testimony of each of the women, alone, was sufficient to submit the issue to the jury. We find the circuit court erred in affirming the municipal court's denial of Appellant's directed verdict motion as to subsections (1), (2), (4), and (5). We find as to subsections (2), (4), and (5) the City presented no evidence that Appellant invited anyone into an automobile, followed anyone, or displayed any lewd behavior. We also find the trial judge should have granted Appellant's directed verdict motion as to subsection (1). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the City, there is no evidence Appellant was guilty of violating this subsection. Both subsections (1) and (3) criminalize molesting or disturbing others. The proscription of subsection (3) relates solely to speech that would molest or disturb others. Officer Mullinax testified she arrested Appellant only on the basis of his verbal comment. The City presented no evidence that, other than through his speech, Appellant engaged in any conduct that would disturb or molest others. We find the circuit court erred in affirming the municipal court's denial of Appellant's directed verdict motion as to these subsections. Because we find the trial court should have directed a verdict of acquittal as to these subsections, we need not address their constitutionality. See Morris v. Anderson County, 349 S.C. 607, 564 S.E.2d 649 (2002) (Court will not unnecessarily reach constitutional questions).