State v. Pearson

Citation783 S.E.2d 802,415 S.C. 463
Decision Date23 March 2016
Docket NumberNo. 27612.,Appellate Case No. 2014–002741.,27612.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Parties The STATE, Petitioner, v. Michael Wilson PEARSON, Respondent.

Attorney General, Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of Columbia, for petitioner.

Appellate Defender, Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for respondent.

Justice BEATTY

.

Michael Wilson Pearson was convicted of first-degree burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping, grand larceny, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. The trial judge sentenced Pearson to an aggregate sentence of sixty years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the circumstantial evidence presented by the State was insufficient to submit the case to the jury. State v. Pearson, 410 S.C. 392, 764 S.E.2d 706 (Ct.App.2014)

. This Court granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. For reasons that will be discussed, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirm Pearson's convictions and sentences.

I. Factual/Procedural History

Around 6:15 a.m. on May 15, 2010, Edward "Slick" Gibbons ("Victim") was attacked by three black males wearing masks as he exited his garage. According to Victim, he was putting on his shoes to get ready to go to work when the men ran out of a storage room in his carport and threw him on the ground. The three men robbed Victim of approximately $840, beat him, and wrapped duct tape around his head. One of the men called Victim by his nickname, "Slick," and said, "Slick, you know that we know that you got money," and the man asked him where the rest of the money was located. Victim told them he had already given them everything he had and begged them not to beat him anymore. Victim noticed one of the men appeared to have something in his hand that might have been a pistol, and he heard the men discuss whether to shoot him.

The three men then left in Victim's 1987 Chevrolet El Camino. As the men were driving away, Victim pulled himself up and observed one man, who was riding in the open back of the El Camino, yell to the two men seated inside the vehicle, "he's up, he's up." This man got out of the vehicle, ran back to Victim and hit him again, rendering him unconscious. When Victim regained consciousness, he alerted his wife by ringing the doorbell on the home. Victim's wife contacted her daughter who called 911 to report the attack.

At approximately 6:40 a.m., a local farmer, Cecil Eaddy, Jr., found the El Camino abandoned in the road with the keys still in it, the motor running, and the passenger door open. The car was located about a mile and half from the auto parts store that Victim owned and within a few miles of Victim's home. Eaddy pulled the vehicle out of the road, turned off the engine, took the keys to Victim's store, and drove Walter Bush, one of Victim's employees, back to the vehicle so that Bush could drive it to Victim's store. Bush testified he drove the vehicle "[s]traight back to the store."

Ricky Richards, an investigator with the Clarendon County Sheriff's Department, responded to the 911 call. After a few minutes at Victim's home, Richards was called to process the El Camino. Richards testified he lifted fingerprints from the driver's side "door jamb" and the "rear quarter on the driver's side." Richards acknowledged there was no way to tell when the fingerprints were left on the vehicle.

While Victim was being treated at the hospital, Thomas Ham, an investigator with the Clarendon County Sheriff's Department, assisted Investigator Kenneth Clark in his interview with Victim. Investigator Ham also took the duct tape that was removed from Victim's head and submitted it to SLED for processing.

Ultimately, a fingerprint recovered from the vehicle was identified as a thumbprint belonging to Pearson and DNA evidence on the duct tape was matched to Victor Weldon. Marie Hodge, the Automated Fingerprint Identification System ("AFIS") examiner, testified that she was able to determine that the fingerprint matched Pearson's right thumbprint. However, Hodge admitted she could not "age" the fingerprint as it could have been "there from two years on up to two days."

Following his arrest, Pearson was interviewed by Investigators Clark and Ham. Investigator Clark testified that Pearson denied he knew Victim or where he lived. According to Investigators Clark and Ham, Pearson stated that he had never been to Victim's house or come in contact with Victim's vehicle. Investigator Clark also interviewed Victor Weldon, who denied having any involvement in the crimes. In separate interviews, Pearson and Weldon denied that they knew each other.

To counter these statements, the State presented evidence that Pearson had been on Victim's property. Richard Gamble, a local landscaper, testified Pearson had previously assisted him in doing landscaping work for Victim and Victim's son, who lived on the same block. Although Gamble could not recall the exact date of the landscaping project, he believed it took place in the spring of 2009 or 2010 and lasted "at least 5 days." Gamble further testified that while working on the project, he observed Pearson enter Victim's garage in order to retrieve tools that were located in the storage area.

Additionally, the State presented the testimony of John Hornsby, who worked as an area supervisor at the South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Center in Sumter. According to Hornsby, time cards and attendance records revealed Pearson and Weldon were both assigned to the facility's woodshop from December 9 through December 12, 2008. Hornsby indicated that around twenty-five individuals generally worked at the woodshop on a daily basis.

After the State rested, Pearson and Weldon both moved for a directed verdict on all charges. Pearson's counsel argued that even though Pearson's fingerprint was found on the outside of Victim's car, the fingerprint was insufficient to place Pearson at the crime scene. Counsel explained there was no evidence as to when the fingerprint was placed on the El Camino and further noted that Pearson lived a block and half from Victim's auto parts store where the vehicle was parked. Counsel opined that "[i]t could have been [placed] well before this whole thing happened."

In response, the State argued that Pearson's fingerprint was found on the rear of the vehicle, where Victim testified one of the men who robbed him had been seated as they drove away. The State also referenced evidence that Pearson and Weldon attended the same job training program over a four-day period, as well as testimony that Pearson had done landscaping work at Victim's home.

Pearson's counsel replied that there were no fingerprints found on the back of the El Camino where Victim "identified the man getting out of the truck, on or off the truck."

Counsel reiterated that "the fingerprint was the only hard evidence the State ha[d] against [Pearson] found on that truck."

The trial judge denied both directed verdict motions. In so ruling, the judge stated:

As far as Mr. Pearson's fingerprint the evidence in this case that has come before this jury that I recall he told the police officer he did not know [Victim]. He had not been at his house or his place of business.
His vehicle was taken that morning. Within 30 minutes the vehicle was found abandoned a mile and a half or two miles away. The vehicle was processed and was carried to the auto parts place and processed. That day his fingerprint was found on the vehicle.
And I certainly think at least that's sufficient evidence for the jury to make a determination of guilt or innocence in this case. And I respectfully deny your motion.

The judge explained he was aware there was also evidence that Pearson had done landscaping work in Victim's yard, was familiar with Victim's house, and there was a question regarding the timeframe of this work. However, the judge found this presented a question of fact for a jury to evaluate because Pearson maintained that he had no contact with Victim or his property.

Neither Pearson nor Weldon presented any evidence. The jury convicted both of first-degree burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping, grand larceny, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.

Pearson appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the circumstantial evidence presented by the State did not rise to the level of substantial circumstantial evidence necessary to submit the case to the jury. State v. Pearson, 410 S.C. 392, 764 S.E.2d 706 (Ct.App.2014)

.

In so ruling, the court found that although the recovered fingerprint directly tied Pearson to the stolen vehicle, "the fingerprint merely raised a suspicion of Pearson's guilt because there was no additional evidence showing when the fingerprint was placed on the vehicle."

Id. at 402, 764 S.E.2d at 712

. The court explained that "there was other evidence showing Pearson may have had an opportunity to come in contact with the vehicle before the crimes occurred." Id. at 401, 764 S.E.2d at 711. The court noted there was "testimony that [Victim] regularly parked his vehicle in a public lot adjacent to his store" and Pearson "assisted with a five-day landscaping project at [Victim's] residence." Id.

The court also noted that "the additional incriminating evidence presented by the State failed to fill the gaps in proof and left the jury to speculate as to Pearson's guilt." Id. at 402, 764 S.E.2d at 711

. Specifically, the court found no evidence established a relationship between Pearson and Weldon and, at most, the "evidence demonstrate[d] the two co-defendants worked in the same facility at the same time." Id. at 402, 764 S.E.2d at 712. Although Pearson and Weldon denied knowing each other, the court found "it is not incredible that neither man could remember a fellow participant in a program they attended more than a year before the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • State v. Smith, Appellate Case No. 2015-001905
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 15 Agosto 2018
    ..."this [c]ourt views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State." State v. Pearson , 415 S.C. 463, 470, 783 S.E.2d 802, 806 (2016) (quoting Butler , 407 S.C. at 381, 755 S.E.2d at 460 ).Mistrial "The granting or refusing of a motion for a mistrial lie......
  • Brown v. Warden of Kershaw Corr. Inst.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 27 Septiembre 2016
    ...Carolina Supreme Court recently limited the "fact-intensive" holding in Mitchell to its "peculiar facts." State v. Pearson, 415 S.C. 463, 474 n.5, 783 S.E.2d 802, 808 n.5 (2016). 14. Order of Dismissal, ECF No. 32-1 at ...
  • State v. Mealor
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 15 Agosto 2018
    ...is made, the trial [court] is concerned with the existence or non-existence of evidence, not with its weight." State v. Pearson , 415 S.C. 463, 469, 783 S.E.2d 802, 805 (2016)."[T]he lens through which a court considers circumstantial evidence when ruling on a directed verdict motion is dis......
  • State v. Greene
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 23 Mayo 2018
    ...the State presented substantial circumstantial evidence, which we view in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Pearson , 415 S.C. 463, 470, 783 S.E.2d 802, 806 (2016). The majority has recited the strongest circumstantial evidence in the record that supports the State's theory of......
  • 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