State v. Edwards, No. 23003

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtHARWELL; GREGORY
Citation379 S.E.2d 888,298 S.C. 272
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Wayne EDWARDS, Appellant. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 23003
Decision Date08 February 1989

Page 888

379 S.E.2d 888
298 S.C. 272
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Wayne EDWARDS, Appellant.
No. 23003.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Feb. 8, 1989.
Decided April 24, 1989.

[298 S.C. 273] Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda Hagler Haile of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Attorney Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr. and Amie L. Clifford, Columbia, and Sol. Joseph J. Watson, Greenville, for respondent.

HARWELL, Justice:

Appellant was convicted of armed robbery. He appeals from the trial court's refusal to grant his motion for a directed verdict. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Wayne Edwards and his co-defendant and brother-in-law Melvin Curtis Cox were tried for armed robbery. Scott Bond, witness for the prosecution, testified that he was working at Agency-Rent-A-Car in Greenville on September 20, 1985, when two men wearing brown ski masks entered the office. One man was short and carried a pistol; the other man was tall. The men went behind the counter and told Bond to give them the money inside the drawer; there was no money in the drawer, so the men told Bond to empty his pockets. The men then tied Bond's hands and legs with duct tape and left him on the floor. They took his wallet and two sets of rental car keys from the counter and fled the [298 S.C. 274] office. One set of the stolen keys belonged to a silver 1984 Ford with Ohio license tags which was taken from the parking lot.

Bond positively identified Melvin Cox as the shorter of the two men involved in the robbery. Bond testified that he could not identify the taller man because of the ski mask. 1

On September 25, 1985, the stolen car was discovered in Gastonia, North Carolina. The Ohio tags were missing; a South Carolina license plate on the car was taken by the police for testing. A shirt and brown stocking cap found outside the car were also retained for testing. Appellant's fingerprints were found on the South Carolina tag. Head hairs from the stocking cap and shirt were determined to have originated from appellant or from some other Caucasian whose head hairs were identical to appellant's.

Testimony was introduced which placed both appellant and Cox in Gastonia, North

Page 889

Carolina in late December of 1985. Charge receipts from Bond's stolen credit cards were traced to North Carolina. Further testimony indicated that appellant and Cox were brothers-in-law and known associates. In April 1986, police...

To continue reading

Request your trial
66 practice notes
  • State v. Cherry, No. 25902.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 29, 2004
    ...taken together, point conclusively to the guilt of the accused to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis." State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 275, 379 S.E.2d 888, 889, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 895, 110 S.Ct. 246, 107 L.Ed.2d 196 (1989) (citing State v. Littlejohn, 228 S.C. 324, 89 S.......
  • State v. Cherry, No. 3296.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 12, 2001
    ...Ervin's model charge on circumstantial evidence is similar to the traditional language our supreme court approved in State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 379 S.E.2d 888 (1989). The traditional charge distinguishes between direct and circumstantial evidence, whereas the new charge adopted in Grip......
  • State v. Cherry, No. 3406.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • November 13, 2001
    ...Ervin's model charge on circumstantial evidence is similar to the traditional language our supreme court approved in State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 379 S.E.2d 888 (1989). The traditional charge distinguishes between direct and circumstantial evidence, whereas the new charge adopted in Grip......
  • Smith v. State, No. 3051
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 27, 2002
    ...A.2d 821 (2002). 805 A.2d 1128 In publishing Wilson's premature obituary, I believe too much is read into the quote from State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 379 S.E.2d 888, 889 (1989), which was included by Chief Judge Bell in Hebron and cited in Judge Eyler's dissent. The Edwards quote affirms......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
66 cases
  • State v. Cherry, No. 25902.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 29, 2004
    ...taken together, point conclusively to the guilt of the accused to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis." State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 275, 379 S.E.2d 888, 889, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 895, 110 S.Ct. 246, 107 L.Ed.2d 196 (1989) (citing State v. Littlejohn, 228 S.C. 324, 89 S.......
  • State v. Cherry, No. 3296.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 12, 2001
    ...Ervin's model charge on circumstantial evidence is similar to the traditional language our supreme court approved in State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 379 S.E.2d 888 (1989). The traditional charge distinguishes between direct and circumstantial evidence, whereas the new charge adopted in Grip......
  • State v. Cherry, No. 3406.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • November 13, 2001
    ...Ervin's model charge on circumstantial evidence is similar to the traditional language our supreme court approved in State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 379 S.E.2d 888 (1989). The traditional charge distinguishes between direct and circumstantial evidence, whereas the new charge adopted in Grip......
  • Smith v. State, No. 3051
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 27, 2002
    ...A.2d 821 (2002). 805 A.2d 1128 In publishing Wilson's premature obituary, I believe too much is read into the quote from State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 379 S.E.2d 888, 889 (1989), which was included by Chief Judge Bell in Hebron and cited in Judge Eyler's dissent. The Edwards quote affirms......
  • 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