781 S.E.2d 352
S.C.2016Background
- At 3:30 a.m., officers found the C.C. Woodson Community Center had a shattered community-room window and an ajar door; a mounted TV in that room appeared tampered with.
- A fingerprint from the tampered TV matched Kevin Bennett.
- A computer-room television was missing; later two drops of blood beneath its former stand matched Bennett by DNA (1 in 17 trillion chance of unrelated match).
- Center director testified Bennett was a frequent visitor who used the computer room but not the community room; the community room was sometimes unlocked and open to the public.
- Bennett was indicted for petit larceny, second-degree burglary, and malicious injury to property; after the trial court denied a directed verdict motion, a jury convicted him on all counts.
- The court of appeals reversed, finding the evidence amounted only to suspicion; the South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Bennett's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of directed verdict was proper based on circumstantial evidence | Evidence (fingerprint and DNA) placed Bennett at crime locations; that is substantial circumstantial evidence for the jury | The prints and blood only placed him in a public building he frequented and thus only create suspicion | Reversed the court of appeals; evidence was sufficient to deny directed verdict and submit case to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Butler, 407 S.C. 376, 755 S.E.2d 457 (2014) (on viewing evidence in light most favorable to State on directed verdict review)
- State v. Cherry, 361 S.C. 588, 606 S.E.2d 475 (2004) (appellate review limited to existence, not weight, of evidence)
- State v. Hepburn, 406 S.C. 416, 753 S.E.2d 402 (2013) (distinguishing suspicion from substantial evidence)
- State v. Ballenger, 322 S.C. 196, 470 S.E.2d 851 (1996) (court need not find guilt to exclusion of all other reasonable hypotheses when denying directed verdict)
- State v. Littlejohn, 228 S.C. 324, 89 S.E.2d 924 (1955) (differing standards: jury’s role vs. court’s directed-verdict inquiry)
- State v. Arnold, 361 S.C. 386, 605 S.E.2d 529 (2004) (reversal of denial of directed verdict in a different factual setting)
- State v. Bostick, 392 S.C. 134, 708 S.E.2d 774 (2011) (reversal of directed verdict denial in a different factual setting)