State v. Breech, 23662
| Decision Date | 04 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 23662,23662 |
| Citation | 308 S.C. 356,417 S.E.2d 873 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. David P. BREECH, Appellant. . Heard |
Robert T. Williams, Sr. of Williams & Brink, Lexington, for appellant.
T. Travis Medlock, Atty. Gen., Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Norman Mark Rapoport, Asst. Attys. Gen., Columbia, and Donald V. Myers, Sol., 11th Circuit, Lexington, for respondent.
Appellant ("Breech") appeals his conviction and sentence for driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI"), second offense. We reverse and remand for resentencing for DUI first offense.
Breech claims that the trial judge erred in refusing to grant a motion for directed verdict or in the alternative a new trial because the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find him guilty of DUI. We disagree.
In reviewing the refusal to grant a directed verdict, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether there is any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused, or from which guilt may be fairly and logically deduced. State v. Schrock, 283 S.C. 129, 322 S.E.2d 450 (1984); State v. Butler, 277 S.C. 452, 290 S.E.2d 1, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 932, 103 S.Ct. 242, 74 L.Ed.2d 191 (1982). The granting or denial of a motion for a new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Simmons, 279 S.C. 165, 303 S.E.2d 857 (1983). Thus, we look to the record to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to present the case to the jury or whether the evidence was so lacking as to constitute an error of law for refusal to grant Breech's motion for a new trial.
The arresting officer testified that he observed Breech driving erratically. The officer stopped Breech; and upon approaching the car, the officer noticed the strong smell of alcohol. The officer administered several field sobriety tests, all of which indicated Breech was intoxicated. Breech was read his rights and arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Subsequently, Breech was transported to the Lexington County Sheriff's Department where a breathalyzer test was administered. The breathalyzer operator testified that Breech registered a .15 on the breathalyzer test. Breech testified that he had four beers. The breathalyzer operator testified that Breech told her he had six beers.
We find there was sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for a directed verdict. Further, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by refusing to grant a motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we affirm the trial judge's denial of Breech's motions for directed verdict and new trial.
Finally, Breech contends that S.C.Code Ann. § 56-5-2940 does not authorize an enhanced penalty based upon an out-of-state conviction. We agree.
Under S.C.Code § 56-5-2930, it is unlawful to drive a vehicle in this state while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The penalty for violation of section 56-5-2930 is enhanced for multiple offenses under S.C.Code Ann. § 56-5-2940. S.C.Code Ann. § 56-5-2940 provides in pertinent part as follows:
For the purposes of this chapter any conviction ... for the violation of any law or ordinance of this State or any municipality of this State that prohibits any person from operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drugs, or narcotics shall constitute a prior offense for the purpose of any prosecution for any subsequent violation hereof. (Emphasis added).
S.C.Code § 56-5-2940 is a criminal statute. Our rules of statutory construction require us to construe criminal statutes strictly with any ambiguity to be resolved in favor of the defendant. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991). Here the statute provides for enhanced penalties "for the violation of any law or ordinance of this State or any municipality of this State that prohibits any person from operating a motor vehicle while under the influence." S.C.Code Ann. § 56-5-2940.
At the time of his arrest, Breech had a valid South Carolina...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burton v. York County Sheriff's Dept.
... ... Campbell, 354 S.C. at 279, 580 S.E.2d at 165 ; see also Goldston v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 358 S.C. 157, 594 S.E.2d 511 (S.C. Ct.App. 2004) (Shearouse Adv. Sh ... ...
-
Hinton v. DEPT. OF PROBATION, PAROLE
...law has been reviewed, once by our supreme court and once by this court. The supreme court examined the issue in State v. Breech, 308 S.C. 356, 417 S.E.2d 873 (1992), which involved a defendant charged with unlawfully driving under the influence of alcohol. Specifically, the issue before th......
-
Burton v. York County Sheriff's Department, Opinion No. 3771 (S.C. App. 4/5/2004)
... ... Campbell , 354 S.C. at 279, 580 S.E.2d at 165; see also Goldston v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , Op. No. 3749 (S.C. Ct. App. filed March 1, 2004) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No ... ...
-
State v. Creech, 2109
...which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused, or from which guilt may be fairly and logically deduced. State v. Breech, --- S.C. ----, 417 S.E.2d 873 (1992). 4 Viewed in this manner, the evidence in this case was sufficient to withstand the directed verdict motion. Officer Black......