State v. Bailey
Decision Date | 23 January 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 4079.,4079. |
Citation | 626 S.E.2d 898 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | The STATE, Appellant, v. Roy BAILEY, Respondent. |
Robert Bethune King, Jr., of Anderson, for Respondent.
The State appeals the circuit court's decision to overturn Roy Bailey's magistrate court conviction for disorderly conduct. We affirm.1
On October 15, 2002, Roy Bailey and Calvin Ladd, one of Bailey's employees, pulled into the Speedway gas station to get gas for the company truck. The company had a gas card with Speedway, and Ladd got out of the truck, swiped the gas card on the pump, and pumped $29 worth of gas. After pumping the gas, Ladd informed Bailey that the pump did not print a receipt. The two went inside the gas station to request a receipt from the clerk. The clerk informed the two that the gas had not been paid for. A dispute arose over whether the transaction on the gas card actually processed, and the police were called.
Deputy Stacy Brooks arrived on the scene. He testified that when he entered the store, Bailey was "extremely argumentative and loud and boisterous" such that customers inside the store were stopping to stare. Brooks stated he attempted to calm Bailey and asked him to step outside the store. Deputy Giles Gladsen arrived at that point and remained outside with Bailey while Brooks returned inside the store to get the clerk's version of the events. After the clerk showed Brooks the computer screen indicating that Bailey did not pay for the gas, Brooks returned outside to inform Bailey that he needed to pay for the gas. Brooks testified that Bailey then became loud, boisterous, and argumentative with him and Gladsen. According to Brooks, although Bailey never used profanity, his behavior drew a lot of attention from people inside and outside the store and that Bailey was "absolutely disorderly within the view of the general public." Brooks also testified that after Bailey refused to pay for the gas, he 2 Deputy Gladsen similarly testified that Bailey was very loud and became disorderly and belligerent with him outside the store within close proximity of other people. Bailey was arrested for disorderly conduct. He complained of chest pains, and he was taken to the hospital for treatment.
The State rested its case after presenting the testimony of Deputies Brooks and Gladsen. Bailey immediately moved for a directed verdict, arguing the State failed to prove that Bailey used fighting words towards the police officers, and thus, he could not be convicted of disorderly conduct pursuant to State v. Perkins, 306 S.C. 353, 412 S.E.2d 385 (1991). The magistrate agreed Perkins may have some applicability, but he found there was evidence that Bailey was loud and boisterous in violation of section 16-17-530 such that the matter should go to the jury. After the denial of the motion for a directed verdict, Bailey presented evidence.3
Calvin Ladd, the employee with Bailey, testified that he and Bailey went inside the store to get a receipt for the gas card transaction. According to Ladd, he did "all the talking" with the store clerk regarding the gas card transaction, not Bailey, and the discussion was calm. Ladd stated Bailey was not loud with the deputies when they were talking outside, and he could not hear what was being said.
Bailey similarly testified at trial that Ladd was the person who spoke with the store clerk regarding the gas card. Bailey testified that once he was outside the store, Deputy Brooks threatened him, stating that Bailey should pay for the gas or else Brooks would find something with which to charge him. Bailey denied ever being loud or disrespectful with the deputies, and he stated that he only yelled when he was having chest pains and wanted medical attention. Bailey also denied there was a large crowd at the gas station watching the events. Bailey was convicted by the jury and sentenced to thirty days in jail, suspended upon the payment of a $258 fine.
Bailey appealed his conviction to the circuit court, arguing the magistrate court erred in: (1) failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict; and (2) failing to give his requested jury instructions, especially the one regarding "fighting words" which must be present in order to charge one with disorderly conduct towards a police officer pursuant to Perkins. After hearing arguments by both parties, the circuit court issued a form order reversing Bailey's conviction. The State appeals.
Appeals from magistrate court convictions are made to the circuit court. S.C.Code Ann. § 18-3-10 (Supp. 2004). The circuit court, acting as the appellate court, reviews the matters raised in the notice of appeal. S.C.Code Ann. § 18-3-70 (Supp. 2004) (); State v. Henderson, 347 S.C. 455, 457, 556 S.E.2d 691, 692 (Ct.App. 2001) (). The appellate court reviewing the circuit court appeal may review for errors of law only. Id.
The State argues the circuit court erred in reversing Bailey's conviction because: (1) the directed verdict issue was not preserved; (2) it was error to rely on Perkins; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support Bailey's conviction. We disagree.
The State initially argues the circuit court erred in reversing the magistrate court's denial of Bailey's motion for a directed verdict on an unpreserved ground because Bailey failed to renew his motion for a directed verdict after the presentation of all the evidence.4
The State raises this issue for the first time on appeal to this court. The State never brought the preservation issue, an additional sustaining ground, to the attention of the circuit court on appeal. See I'on, L.L.C. v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 420, 526 S.E.2d 716, 723 (2000) ( ). Instead, both Bailey and the State vigorously argued the merits of whether Bailey was entitled to a directed verdict based upon Perkins. The circuit court reviewed the issues raised before it and reversed Bailey's conviction.
Because the preservation issue was never brought to the attention of the circuit court on appeal, no ruling on the matter was ever issued. Further, nothing in the record indicates the State brought the matter to the attention of the circuit court in a petition for rehearing. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for this court to review it. See City of Columbia v. Ervin, 330 S.C. 516, 519-20, 500 S.E.2d 483, 485 (1998) ( ); Condor, Inc., v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 328 S.C. 173, 178 n. 4, 493 S.E.2d 342, 344 n. 4 (1997) ( ); see also Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 75-76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ( ).
The State argues the circuit court erred in reversing the denial of Bailey's motion for a directed verdict because it erroneously relied upon Perkins and because enough evidence existed to support Bailey's guilt. We disagree.
On appeal from the denial of a directed verdict, an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Lollis, 343 S.C. 580, 583, 541 S.E.2d 254, 256 (2001); State v. Burdette, 335 S.C. 34, 46, 515 S.E.2d 525, 531 (1999); State v. Kelsey, 331 S.C. 50, 62, 502 S.E.2d 63, 69 (1998). When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight. Burdette, 335 S.C. at 46, 515 S.E.2d at 531; State v. Wakefield, 323 S.C. 189, 197, 473 S.E.2d 831, 835 (Ct.App. 1996). "If there is any direct evidence or any 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." Lollis, 343 S.C. at 584, 541 S.E.2d at 256. "A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to produce evidence of the offense charged." State v. Rosemond, 356 S.C. 426, 429, 589 S.E.2d 757, 758 (2003).
Bailey was charged with public disorderly conduct. The pertinent portion of the public disorderly conduct statute provides that it is a misdemeanor for a person to "be found ... at any public place or public gathering... otherwise conducting himself in a disorderly or boisterous manner...." S.C.Code Ann. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wright v. Craft
...316 S.C. 34, 37 446 S.E.2d 440, 442 (Ct.App.1994) aff'd in result, 320 S.C. 218, 464 S.E.2d 112 (1995). See State v. Bailey, 368 S.C. 39, 43, 626 S.E.2d 898, 900 (Ct.App.2006) ("If a defendant presents evidence after the denial of his motion for a directed verdict at the close of the [plain......
-
Stephens v. CSX Transp., Inc.
...Rule 50(b) is strictly applied), overruled on other grounds by 303 S.C. 177, 399 S.E.2d 767 (1990) ; cf. State v. Bailey, 368 S.C. 39, 43 n. 4, 626 S.E.2d 898, 900 n. 4 (Ct.App.2006) (stating, "[i]f a defendant presents evidence after the denial of his directed verdict motion at the close o......
-
McLaurin v. Warden McCormick Corr. Inst.
... ... Kevin ... F. McDonald United States Magistrate Judge ... The ... petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se , ... seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ... Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C ... v. Burton , 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 (S.C. 2003); State v ... Green , 567 S.E.2d 505, 508 (Ct. App. 2002). See also ... State v. Bailey , 626 S.E.2d 898, 900 n.4 (S.C. Ct. App ... 2006) (stating that “[i]f a defendant presents evidence ... after the denial of his ... ...
-
State v. McKown
... ... possession of a prescription drug charge: There is no ... indication in the record that the motion was renewed at the ... close of all evidence; thus, this issue is not preserved for ... appellate review. See 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 ... ...