This appeal arises out of Karl Ryan Lane’s conviction for first-degree burglary. On appeal, Lane argues the trial court erred (1) by refusing to grant a directed verdict when the evidence merely raised the suspicion of his guilt and the State failed to present substantial circumstantial evidence that he was guilty of first-degree burglary and (2) by refusing to charge the jury on the circumstantial evidence instruction he requested. We reverse.
On April 21, 2011, firеarms were stolen from a gun safe in Mark McSwain’s house. Pamela Holladay, McSwain’s neighbor, testified a car pulled into McSwain’s driveway around 8:20 р.m. on the day McSwain’s guns were stolen. According to Holladay, the car was a red or burgundy four-door car with a paper tag, and the front pаssenger panel appeared to be a gray primer panel. Holladay testified the car appeared to be a “Mitsubishi Gallant-type car.” According to Holladay, she saw a person approach the front door of McSwain’s residence, return to the car, and then approach the back door. Holladay testified at least one person approached the doors of the hоme but two people were in the car when it left McSwain’s property. Holladay explained she was unable to see the individuals’ facеs.
McSwain testified he discovered firearms were stolen from the safe in his house at approximately 4:30 p.m. McSwain explained he called the police after he noticed his gun safe was empty. According to McSwain, shortly after the police left his house after processing the scene, he noticed a folded piece of paper in the grass beside his driveway and notified the police. Deputy Michaеl Torres testified he was part of the investigation at McSwain’s house and returned to McSwain’s house at approximately 8:00 p.m. after McSwain fоund the piece of paper in his yard. According to Deputy Torres, the paper could have arrived in McSwain’s yard after 6:00 p.m. because he did not see the paper during his original search for evidence. The paper was determined to be from an unemployment offiсe, which Lane had visited the day of the burglary, located approximately two to three miles from McSwain’s house.
Detective Benjamin Dow also testified at trial and acknowledged no eye witnesses identified who was in the car that pulled into McSwain’s driveway. Detective Dow also аcknowledged no fingerprints identified who went into McSwain’s residence. At the conclusion of the State’s case, a motion for a directed vеrdict was made and denied by the trial court. Lane was convicted of first-degree burglary and sentenced to 215 months’ imprisonment. This appeal followed.
“In criminal cases, an appellate court sits to review only errors of law, and it is bound by the trial court’s factual findings unless the findings are clearly erroneous.” State v. Spears,
LAW/ANALYSIS
Lane argues the trial court erred by refusing to grant a directed verdict because the evidence merely raised a suspicion of his guilt and the State failed to present substantial circumstantial evidence that he was guilty of first-degree burglary. We agree.
A defendant is guilty of burglary in the first degree if the defendant “enters a dwelling without consent and with intent to commit a crime in the dwelling” and “when, in effecting entry or while in the dwelling or in immеdiate flight, he or another participant in the crime ... is armed with a deadly weapon or explosive.” S.C.Code Ann. § 16 — 11— 311(A)(1)(a) (2003). In reviewing a motion for а directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with the existence of the evidence, not with its weight. State v. Brannon,
The State’s case against Lane consisted solely of circumstantial evidence. The State рresented the following evidence to establish Lane committed first-degree burglary: (1) the testimony of McSwain’s neighbor that a burgundy/red “Mitsubishi Gallant-type car” with a paper tag and primer painted panel was in McSwain’s driveway the day of the theft; (2) testimony that, at times, Lane drove a red/burgundy Mitsubishi Gallant belonging to his girlfriend that matched the description given by McSwain’s neighbor; (3) testimony that Lane drove the Gallant the day of the theft; (4) testimony that a folded piece of paper belonging to Lane was found in McSwain’s driveway that was not originally found by the police but found later outside; and (5) testimony thаt Lane did not want to talk to police officers the day after the theft and asked his girlfriend’s mother to lie to officers concerning his whereabouts.
Viewing the foregoing evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find the State did not present substantial circumstantial evidence to reasonably prove Lane was the person who committed the burglary. At most, the evidence the State presented raises only a merе suspicion that Lane committed the crime. Accordingly, we find the trial court erred by failing to grant Lane’s directed verdict motion. See Odems,
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the trial court is hereby
REVERSED.
Notes
. We decline to address Lane’s second issue on appeal, as the directed verdict issue is dispositive. See State v. Hercheck,