Court Opinion

ID: 9583874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:42:44.145138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:10.447678
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice TOAL:
I respectfully dissent. In my view, the State presented sufficient evidence to warrant the trial judge’s denial of respondent’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.
The events in this case occurred within a few days. The victim was found dead on June 21 in Colleton County, off an access road that had rough terrain and overgrown brush. The coroner estimated that the victim had been murdered on June *39118. Just days before the murder, on June 14-15, respondent and the victim met for the first time, in Savannah, and the two had sex. Respondent was in town visiting Bobby Ray Ware, a truck driver who had a sexual relationship with the victim for over a year. According to Ware, Respondent was carrying a gun.
Ware left town for Chicago on the morning of June 17. Respondent stayed behind at Ware’s residence. The next morning, June 18, the victim borrowed a nearly new BMW from one of his colleagues. He withdrew $300 from an ATM in Hardeeville, near Colleton County. Later, the victim was murdered by gunshot. When his body was found, he was still wearing a watch and a gold ring, but his wallet and cash were missing.
On June 19, the very next day, respondent left Ware a phone message, asking Ware to call him in Tennessee. On June 20, the BMW was found in Tennessee, near respondent’s father’s home. The lead investigator reported that the exteri- or of the BMW had scratches on it, “like it had been [driven] down something rough.” Respondent’s thumbprint was found on a coffee cup lid left in the car.
Given the short timeframe within' which these events occurred; the sexual relationship between the victim and respondent; the thumbprint evidence in the borrowed BMW; the scratches on the car; and the location of the abandoned car in Tennessee, near the place respondent was staying, there was enough evidence, in my view, from which respondent’s guilt could be fairly and logically deduced.4 See State v. Mitchell, 341 S.C. 406, 409, 535 S.E.2d 126, 127 (2000) (the trial judge must submit the case to the jury if there is “any substantial evidence which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused, or from which his guilt may be fairly and logically deduced”).
*392Therefore, in my view, the court of appeals erred in reversing respondent’s conviction.
BURNETT, J., concurs.

. It is also my view that had this case been submitted to the jury, respondent would have been entitled to the traditional circumstantial evidence charge as described in State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 379 S.E.2d 888, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 895, 110 S.Ct. 246, 107 L.Ed.2d 196 (1989).