Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2007-UP-527 - State v. Stevens

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(D)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Neal Stevens, Appellant.


Appeal From Aiken County
 Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-527
Submitted November 1, 2007 – Filed November 13, 2007


AFFIRMED


Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliot, Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:    Neal Stevens appeals his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.  Stevens asserts the trial judge erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on the basis that a reasonable jury could not have found him guilty of the single first-degree criminal sexual conduct charge, because the jury acquitted him on nearly identical charges, based on the similar evidence, involving the same victim.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 275, 379 S.E.2d 888, 889 (1989) (finding that on a motion for a directed verdict in a criminal case, the trial court is concerned with the existence or non-existence of evidence, not its weight);  State v. McGowan, 347 S.C. 618, 622, 557 S.E.2d 657, 659 (2001) (holding if the State presents any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused, an appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to the jury).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and KITTREDGE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


[1]  Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.