State v. Bennett, 758 S.E.2d 743

Bennett was convicted of burglary in the second degree, petty larceny, and malicious injury to real property.
An alarm at the C.C. Woodson Community Center triggered early on November 17, 2010, leading to a police investigation.
A latent fingerprint from the community room television matched Bennett.
Blood droplets found in the computer room matched Bennett’s DNA.
The center director testified Bennett was a frequent visitor and that monitoring was imperfect due to hours and access.
The trial court denied Bennett’s motion for a directed verdict; the appellate court reversed, finding insufficient circumstantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove Bennett’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?	Bennett argues the evidence is insufficient and merely suggests presence.	State contends substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably proves identity.	Directed-verdict should have been granted; convictions reversed.

State v. Cope, 405 S.C. 317 (S.C. 2013) (standard for reviewing directed verdicts; requires substantial evidence beyond suspicion)
State v. Odems, 395 S.C. 582 (S.C. 2011) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency standard)
State v. Lane, 406 S.C. 118 (Ct.App.2013) (identity proven beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial cases)
State v. Arnold, 361 S.C. 386 (S.C. 2004) (directed verdict if evidence raises only suspicion)
State v. Bostick, 392 S.C. 134 (S.C. 2011) (circumstantial evidence must reasonably prove guilt; mere suspicion insufficient)