(a) Grounds for Motion.
On motion of the defendant or on its own motion, the court shall direct a verdict in the defendant's favor on any offense charged in the indictment after the evidence on either side is closed, if there is a failure of competent evidence tending to prove the charge in the indictment. In ruling on the motion, the trial judge shall consider only the existence or non-existence of the evidence and not its weight.
(b) Defendant's Right to Present Evidence.
If a defendant's motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by the State is not granted, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right.
(c) Submission of Case to Jury.
Submission of any charge to the jury shall constitute a denial of any motion for directed verdict previously made by the defendant and not ruled upon.
Note:
This is substantially the substance of Circuit Court Rule 76. The language is taken from Rule 29(a), Fed. R. Crim. P. and the common law.
Annotations Rule 19
19
Appeal
"In reviewing the denial of a motion for a directed verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the State, and if there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, an appellate court must find that the case was properly submitted to the jury. In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight." State v. Kelsey, 331 S.C. 50, 62, 502 S.E.2d 63, 69 (1998).
"[T]here is some confusion in South Carolina's case law regarding the standard of review to be applied when reviewing the denial of a directed verdict motion in criminal cases. It is clear that the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the State, and that we must be concerned with the existence of the evidence and not its weight. The confusion, however, comes in determining the quantum of evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, that is required to send a case to the jury. Some cases state that 'if there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, an appellate court must find that the case was properly submitted to the jury.' Other cases state that a criminal case 'should be submitted to the jury if there is any substantial evidence, either direct or circumstantial, which tends to prove the guilt of the accused or from which his guilt may be fairly and logically deduced.' Still other cases state that a jury issue is created by the presentation of "any direct or circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the defendant's guilt." State v. Scott, 330 S.C. 125, 497 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct. App. 1998).
"In reviewing the trial judge's refusal to grant a directed verdict, the appellate court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the State. The court must affirm this decision if there is any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused. The trial judge must evaluate only the existence of evidence, not its weight." State v. Bean, 327 S.C. 589, 490 S.E.2d 16, 17 (Ct. App. 1997).
"In reviewing the refusal to grant a directed verdict motion, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State and if there is any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence, reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, this Court must find that such issues were properly decided by the jury. The trial judge should be concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight." State v. Huggins, 325 S.C. 103, 481 S.E.2d 114, 116 (1997).
"In reviewing the refusal to grant a directed verdict motion, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State and if there is any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence, reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, this Court must find that such issues were properly decided by the jury. In ruling on a motion for directed verdict, a trial judge is concerned only with the existence of evidence, not its weight." State v. Nichols, 325 S.C. 111, 481 S.E.2d 118, 124 (1997).
"When this Court reviews the denial of a motion for a directed verdict, it views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and if there is any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused or from which guilt may be fairly logically deduced, refusal by the trial judge to direct a verdict is not error." State v. Long, 325 S.C. 59, 480 S.E.2d 62, 63 (1997).
"In reviewing the trial judge's denial of a motion for a directed verdict, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and if there is any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence, reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, we must find that such issues were properly to be decided by the jury." State v. Home, 324 S.C. 372, 478 S.E.2d 289, 292 (Ct. App. 1996).
"In considering whether the trial judge erred in denying a motion for a directed verdict, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State." State v. Ballenger, 322 S.C. 196, 470 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1996).
"On appeal from the denial of a motion for directed verdict, this court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State." State v. Ezell, 321 S.C. 421, 468 S.E.2d 679, 680 (Ct. App. 1996).
"When this Court reviews the denial of a motion for a directed verdict, it views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and if there is any direct or substantial evidence which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused, refusal by the trial judge to direct a verdict is not error." State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 327, 468 S.E.2d 626, 629 (1996).
"In reviewing the refusal of a trial court to grant a directed verdict of acquittal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether there is any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused or from which the guilt may fairly and logically be deduced." State v. McCaskill, 321 S.C. 283, 468 S.E.2d 81, 82 (Ct. App. 1996).
"In reviewing the denial of a motion for directed verdict, we must determine whether any evidence exists which tends to prove the guilt may be fairly and logically deduced. . . . Moreover, we must consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the state...
