State v. Davenport, 2462

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtCONNOR
Citation467 S.E.2d 258,321 S.C. 134
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Avery DAVENPORT, Appellant. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 2462,2462
Decision Date07 November 1995

Page 258

467 S.E.2d 258
321 S.C. 134
The STATE, Respondent,
Avery DAVENPORT, Appellant.
No. 2462.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard Nov. 7, 1995.
Decided Feb. 5, 1996.

Assistant Appellate Defender Lisa T. Gregory, of the SC Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorneys General Rakale B. Smith and Caroline E. Callison, Columbia; and Solicitor Walter M. Bailey, Jr., Summerville, for respondent.

CONNOR, Judge:

An Orangeburg County jury convicted Avery Davenport of criminal sexual conduct, first degree. The trial judge sentenced him to thirty years. Davenport appeals. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

I. Facts

During December 1992 Valerie Dyches, the victim, lived with her sister, Cynthia McDonald, in a two-bedroom mobile [321 S.C. 136] home in Orangeburg. Dyches did not personally know Davenport. Davenport got Dyches's phone number from the back of a picture she had given a mutual friend.

On December 4, 1992, Davenport called Dyches, and she agreed to meet him at the local McDonalds. After meeting, they went to Dyches's house to watch television for awhile, then went to a nine o'clock movie and got something to eat before going back to Dyches's home. Because it was raining, Dyches and her sister allowed Davenport to sleep on the couch that night.

The next morning, Dyches planned to leave when her sister left for work. However, as soon as her sister left, Davenport pulled out a knife and forced Dyches to sit on the couch, repeatedly demanding that she make love to him. She refused at first, but, because she was frightened, she eventually "was willing to do whatever he wanted to do because [she] was scared for [her] life." Davenport forced her to take her clothes off, and attempted to have intercourse, but he ejaculated prematurely on the couch. Dyches then got dressed, but Davenport, who was still holding the knife, continued to insist she make love to him. Dyches followed Davenport into the bedroom and removed her clothes. 1 She then told Davenport she had to use the bathroom, hoping to run out the back door. However, Davenport stood at the bathroom door and took her back to the bedroom. He again attempted to have sex with her, but could not have an erection. To "show [her] how much he loved [her]," he performed oral sex on her. Afterwards, he told her to wash herself and she went into the bathroom, washing only the side of her leg so that no evidence would be destroyed. Dyches then got dressed. When Davenport left, she ran to her neighbors. They took

Page 260

her to Orangeburg Regional Hospital, where a rape protocol examination was performed. 2

[321 S.C. 137] II. Analysis

A. Motion for Directed Verdict

Davenport first argues the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal in his favor. In reviewing the denial of a motion for directed verdict, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Stokes, 299 S.C. 483, 386 S.E.2d 241 (1989). Criminal sexual conduct, first degree, is sexual battery using aggravated force or forcibly confining the victim. S.C.Code Ann. 16-3-652 (1985).

Davenport alleges the state failed to prove aggravated force because there was no evidence he had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Wallace, 3971.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 28, 2005
    ...S.E.2d at 815 ("If there is any doubt as to the connection between the acts, the evidence should not be admitted."); State v. Davenport, 321 S.C. 134, 138, 467 S.E.2d 258, 260 (Ct.App.1996) (finding that where there was no clear connection between the extraneous criminal transaction and the......
  • State v. Tutton, 3630.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 21, 2003
    ...under the common scheme or plan exception after finding insufficient similarities between the separate attacks); State v. Davenport, 321 S.C. 134, 467 S.E.2d 258 (Ct.App.1996) ("We cannot clearly perceive the connection between the [separate] acts based on these criteria, and we therefore c......
  • State v. Berry, 2863.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 29, 1998
    ...its logical relevancy, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt, and the evidence should be rejected."); State v. Davenport, 321 S.C. 134, 138-39, 467 332 S.C. 220 S.E.2d 258, 261 (Ct.App.1996) ("We cannot clearly perceive the connection between the acts based on these criteria,......
  • State v. Houston, 2006-UP-398
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 7, 2006
    ...possession of the stolen property) was a factual issue for the jury to consider and does not undermine the verdict. State v. Davenport, 321 S.C. 134, 137, 467 S.E.2d 258, 260 n.2 (Ct. App. 1995); State v. Smith, 307 S.C. 376, 385, 415 S.E.2d 409, 414 (Ct. App. 1992). The motion for a direct......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT