State v. Hudson, 21601

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtGREGORY; LEWIS
Citation277 S.C. 200,284 S.E.2d 773
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Robert L. HUDSON and Ernestine Marie Hudson, Appellants.
Docket NumberNo. 21601,21601
Decision Date24 November 1981

Page 773

284 S.E.2d 773
277 S.C. 200
The STATE, Respondent,
Robert L. HUDSON and Ernestine Marie Hudson, Appellants.
No. 21601.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Nov. 24, 1981.

[277 S.C. 201] Deputy Appellate Defender Vance J. Bettis, of S. C. Commission of Appellate Defense

Page 774

and David I. Bruck, Columbia, for appellants.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Lindy P. Funkhouser and Senior Asst. Atty. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes, Columbia, and Sol. William W. Wilkins, Jr., Greenville, for respondent.

GREGORY, Justice:

Appellants, husband and wife, were tried jointly and convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute. Each was sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment. We affirm the conviction of appellant Robert Hudson. Counsel for Ernestine Hudson has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, and requesting permission to withdraw from representation. We agree and dismiss her appeal.

Appellant Robert Hudson first asserts the trial judge erred in failing to direct a verdict of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin. We disagree.

In deciding whether the Court erred in not directing a verdict in favor of appellant, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. When a motion for directed verdict is made, the trial judge is concerned with the existence of evidence, not with its weight. It is his duty to submit the case to the jury if there is 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. Ellis, 263 S.C. 12, 207 S.E.2d 408, 412 (1974), citing State v. Wheeler, 259 S.C. 571, at 578, 193 S.E.2d 515 (1972); State v. Jordan, 255 S.C. 86, 177 S.E.2d 464 (1970).

Where circumstantial evidence is relied upon by the State in a criminal case, there must be positive proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together, warrant inference of guilt to a moral certainty, to the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis. If there is any evidence tending to support [277 S.C. 202] an inference of guilt, the court must submit the issue to the jury. State v. McIver, 238 S.C. 401, 120 S.E.2d 393 (1961).

Pursuant to a search warrant for marijuana, police officers knocked on the front door of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • Kamara v. State, 650
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 7 Junio 2012
    ...that Crawford knew of and exercised control over the cocaine found in the dresser in what was proven to be her bedroom”); State v. Hudson, 277 S.C. 200, 284 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1981) ( “Where contraband materials are found on premises under the control of the accused, this fact in and of itsel......
  • State v. Stanley, 4007.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 27 Junio 2005
    ...actual physical custody of the person charged with possession. State v. Ballenger, 322 S.C. 196, 470 S.E.2d 851 (1996); State v. Hudson, 277 S.C. 200, 284 S.E.2d 773 (1981). In order to prove constructive possession, the State must show the defendant had dominion and control, or the right t......
  • Rice v. Cartledge, Civil Action No. 6:14-3748-RMG-KFM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 6 Julio 2015
    ...charged with possession has dominion and control over either drugs or the premises upon which the drugs are found); State v. Hudson, 284 S.E.2d 773, 775 (S.C. 1981) ("Where contraband materials are found on premises under the control ofPage 17the accused, this fact in and of itself gives ri......
  • Goldsmith v. Witkowski, 91-7578
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 5 Enero 1993
    ...Page 702 had special relation with car's owner or its driver or that defendant exercised control over the car); cf. State v. Hudson, 277 S.C. 200, 284 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1981) (holding that evidence of heroin, seized from apartment shared by the defendants, was sufficient to show control and ......
  • 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