State v. Mejean

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: June 28, 2017
• Docket: 2017-UP-259
• Status: Unpublished

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 Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Christopher Eric Mejean, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001282

Appeal From Greenville County R. Keith Kelly, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-259 Submitted May 1, 2017 – Filed June 28, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender John Harrison Strom, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, both of Columbia; and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Harry, 321 S.C. 273, 277, 468 S.E.2d 76, 79 (Ct. App. 1996) ("A motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the [State's] case is not sufficient to preserve error unless renewed at the close of all the evidence, because once the defense has come forward with its proof, the propriety of a directed verdict can only be tested in terms of all the evidence." (quoting Kimbrough v. Commonwealth, 550 S.W.2d 525, 529 (Ky. 1977))); State v. Bailey, 368 S.C. 39, 43 n.4, 626 S.E.2d 898, 900 n.4 (Ct. App. 2006) ("If a defendant presents evidence after the denial of his directed verdict motion at the close of the State's case, he must make another directed verdict motion at the close of all evidence in order to appeal the sufficiency of the evidence.").

AFFIRMED. 1

WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., and LEE, A.J., concur.

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