Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-MO-010 - State v. Kelly

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 Supreme Court

The State, Respondent,

v.

William Kelly, Appellant.

 


Appeal from Darlington County
 J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge


Memorandum Opinion No.  2012-MO-010
Heard April 4, 2012 – Filed April 11, 2012 


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer and Appellate Defender Susan B. Hackett, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Chief Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, Solicitor William Benjamin Rogers, Jr., for Respondent.


PER CURIAM:  William Kelly appeals the denial of his motion for a directed verdict, arguing the State did not produce sufficient evidence demonstrating that the acts Kelly allegedly committed were done in Darlington County.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Brisbon, 323 S.C. 324, 327, 474 S.E.2d 433, 435 (1996) ("Evidence of venue, though slight, is sufficient in the absence of conflicting evidence and may be proved by circumstantial evidence as well as direct evidence."); State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 327, 334, 468 S.E.2d 626, 630 (1996) ("[V]enue, like jurisdiction, in a criminal case need not be affirmatively proved, and circumstantial evidence of venue, though slight, is sufficient to establish jurisdiction."); 21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 469 ("Where uncertainty exists, the accused may be tried in any county in which evidence indicates the crime might have been committed.").

AFFIRMED.

PLEICONES, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, BEATTY, KITTREDGE, HEARN, JJ., and Acting Justice James E. Moore, concur.