Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-263 - State v. Hoover

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Archie Hoover, Appellant.


Appeal From Pickens County
D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-263
Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed April 29, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General S. Creighton Waters, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Archie Hoover appeals his conviction for murder.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:    

1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict: State v. Cherry, 361 S.C. 588, 593, 606 S.E.2d 475, 478 (2004) (explaining a defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to produce evidence of the offense charged); State v. Harris, 351 S.C. 643, 653, 572 S.E.2d 267, 273 (2002) (stating if there is any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, an appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to the jury); State v. Hale, 284 S.C. 348, 356, 326 S.E.2d 418, 423 (Ct. App. 1985) ("It is the function of the jury, not an appellate court, to judge the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony."). 

2. As to whether Hoover is entitled to the reversal of his conviction because the State elicited improper testimony from a witness:  State v. Peay, 321 S.C. 405, 413, 468 S.E.2d 669, 674 (Ct. App. 1996) (finding a contemporaneous objection and ruling at trial is required to properly preserve an error for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.