State v. Holmes
Decision Date | 10 April 2019 |
Docket Number | 2019-UP-133 |
Parties | The State, Respondent, v. George Holmes, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2016-002010 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
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.
Submitted February 1, 2019
Withdrawn, Substituted, and Refiled August 28, 2019
Appeal From Beaufort County Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge
Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, for Respondent.
In this criminal matter, George Holmes appeals the circuit court's denial of his motion for a directed verdict. Holmes argues the circuit court erred in failing to direct a verdict on the offense of indecent exposure when (1) the alleged exposure occurred in a holding cell at the Beaufort County Detention Center (the Detention Center), which is not a public place as intended under section 16-15-130 of the South Carolina Code (2015) and (2) the circuit court applied the wrong standard of review, and under the correct standard of review, the State failed to present any direct or circumstantial evidence that Holmes willfully or maliciously exposed his person or intended to expose his person. We affirm.
1. We find there is evidence to support the circuit court's refusal to direct a verdict because whether the Detention Center jail cell is a public place under section 16-15-130(A)(1) is a question of fact that should be resolved by a jury. See State v. Zeigler, 364 S.C. 94, 103 610 S.E.2d 859, 863 (Ct. App. 2005) (); State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) ("When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight."); Hopper v. Terry Hunt Constr., 373 S.C. 475, 479-80, 646 S.E.2d 162, 165 (Ct. App. 2007) () ; see, e.g., Bursey v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 369 S.C. 176, 185, 631 S.E.2d 899, 904 (2006), overruled on other grounds by Allison v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 394 S.C. 185, 188, 714 S.E.2d 547, 549 (2011) ( ); § 16-15-130(A)(1) (); State v. Williams, 280 S.C. 305, 306, 312 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1984) (defining "public place" as "[a] place to which the general public has a right to resort; not necessarily a place devoted solely to the uses of the public, but a place which is in point of fact public rather than private, a place visited by many persons and usually accessible to the neighboring public . . . [a]ny place so situated that what passes there can be seen by any considerable number of persons, if they happen to look . . . [a]lso, a place in which the public has an interest as affecting the safety, health, morals, and welfare of the community . . . [a] place exposed to the public, and where the public gather together or pass to and fro" (quoting Public Place, Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. rev. 1968)); see also Collins v. State, 381 S.E.2d 430, 431 (Ga.Ct.App. 1989) (); Douglas v. State, 768 S.E.2d 526, 551 (Ga.Ct.App. 2015) (); People v. Williams, 613 N.W.2d 721 (Mich. 2000) (); Wisneski v. State, 905 A.2d 385, 393 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006) ; State v. Narcisse, 833 So.2d 1186, 1192 (La. Ct. App. 2002) ( ).
Further, we find there is evidence reasonably tending to prove the jail cell is a public place because the cell is visible to those who pass by and happen to look through the cell window or the gap in the door. See Williams, 280 S.C. at 306, 312 S.E.2d at 556 ( ). Officer Jessica DeSantis testified she could see into the cell from the booking desk and as she walked past the cell. Witness testimony indicated the booking area is the busiest part of the Detention Center and a considerable number of people pass through the booking area, including corrections officers, attorneys, maintenance workers, nurses, and anyone being booked.
2. We find Holmes's argument that the circuit court applied the wrong standard of review is not preserved for appellate review. This issue was not raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court. See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial