State v. Mitchell
Citation | 332 S.C. 619,506 S.E.2d 523 |
Decision Date | 28 September 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 2885.,2885. |
Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Bennie Darren MITCHELL, Appellant. |
Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of 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, and Assistant Attorney General G. Robert DeLoach, II, all of Office of the Attorney General; and Solicitor W. Townes Jones, IV, Greenwood, for respondent.
Bennie Mitchell was convicted of first-degree burglary and sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. He appeals, asserting the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because the state failed to prove he entered the dwelling. We reverse. On September 7, 1995, Hugh Mathis went home for lunch and saw ten beers in his refrigerator. Upon returning home later, he noticed the beers were gone. After "grilling" his 20-year-old son and 16-year-old daughter about the missing beer, he concluded they were not responsible.
On September 13, Mathis found a piece of glass on the floor of a back room in his house, a room, which, including its windows, he recently had been painting. Suspicious, Mathis pushed the blinds back and saw a hole in the window pane and the window unlocked. He immediately checked his valuables and discovered two handguns missing. Mathis then contacted the police to report a burglary.
The next day, the investigating officer, Lt. Pickelsimer, found more broken glass on the floor. A thin blanket covered some of the glass particles. Pickelsimer found no glass outside the house. He did find a window screen, apparently part of a storm window, leaning up against the house directly under the broken window.
Pickelsimer transported the screen to his office and later that day lifted a latent thumbprint from the outside left middle portion of the screen. The print matched Mitchell's left thumbprint. Mitchell's prints, however, were not found on the window frame, glass, or sill, or anywhere inside the house. Neither the guns nor the beer were ever recovered.
At trial, the state presented evidence that Mitchell had been on the Mathis property at least twice, once to help Mathis's son move furniture and attend a social gathering in the house and another time to help the son unload lumber. Mathis further testified that Mitchell had not entered the room where the broken window and glass were found on either occasion.
The sole evidence presented to link Mitchell to the crime charged1 was the thumbprint on the window screen. At the close of the state's case, Mitchell's counsel moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on the basis that the state had not proved Mitchell unlawfully entered the premises. This motion was denied. He renewed the motion at the close of the defense case. The motion was again denied. Mitchell contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict, arguing that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he unlawfully entered the Mathis residence. We agree.
The state's evidence against Mitchell was entirely circumstantial. In such cases, in order to survive a motion for directed verdict, our supreme court has held that the state must present substantial circumstantial evidence which "reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused or from which guilt may be fairly and logically deduced...." State v. Long, 325 S.C. 59, 62, 480 S.E.2d 62, 63 (1997) (quoting State v. Littlejohn, 228 S.C. 324, 329, 89 S.E.2d 924, 926 (1955)). Accordingly, the trial court should not deny the motion "where the evidence merely raises a suspicion that the accused is guilty." Id.
The question, then, is whether or not a fingerprint found outside a dwelling near the point of entry is "substantial" circumstantial evidence sufficient to permit a jury to receive the case. We think not. See Hood v. Texas, 860 S.W.2d 931 (Tex.App.1993)
( ); McCleskey v. Texas, 924 S.W.2d 427 (Tex.App.1996) ( ); People v. Jacob, 55 A.D.2d 961, 391 N.Y.S.2d 165 (N.Y.App.Div.1977) ( ); Monroe v. Delaware, 652 A.2d 560 (1995...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. French
...States v. Talbert, 710 F.2d 528, 531 (9th Cir.1983) ; Hawkins v. United States, 329 A.2d 781, 782 (D.C.1974) ; State v. Mitchell, 332 S.C. 619, 623, 506 S.E.2d 523 (1998).10 In Monroe v. State, 652 A.2d at 565–566, the Delaware Supreme Court concluded that the presence of eight latent finge......
-
People v. Beauchamp
...established whether the fingerprints were on the inside or outside surfaces of the louvers. Similarly, in State v. Mitchell, 332 S.C. 619, 506 S.E.2d 523 (S.C.App.1998), the Court of Appeals of South Carolina reversed a burglary conviction for insufficient proof of entry where its defendant......
-
Pike v. South Carolina Dept. of Transp.
... ... §§ 15-78-10 to XX-XX-XXX (Supp.1997). We disagree ... The Tort Claims Act waives immunity for torts committed by the State, its political subdivisions, and governmental employees acting within the scope of their official duties. See S.C.Code Ann. §§ 15-78-20(b) and ... ...
-
Pike v. South Carolina Dept. of Transp.
... ... The Tort Claims Act waives immunity for torts committed by the State, its political subdivisions, and governmental employees acting within the scope of their official duties. See S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-40 ... ...