State v. Kelly

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Kelly

DecidedApril 11, 2012

Docket2012-MO-010

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Kelly (State v. Kelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Kelly, (S.C. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Kelly, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kelly-sc-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack