From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Lard

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Aug 2, 2017
Appellate Case No. 2015-001940 (S.C. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2017)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2015-001940 Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-326

08-02-2017

In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Daniel Lee Lard, Appellant.

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, both of Columbia, for Respondent.


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. Appeal From Aiken County
Tanya A. Gee, Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279, 299, 536 S.E.2d 408, 418 (Ct. App. 2000) ("When reviewing the denial of a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, this [c]ourt must employ the same standard as the trial court by viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."); In re Taft, 413 S.C. 16, 22, 774 S.E.2d 462, 465 (2015) ("In considering a directed verdict motion, the trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of 2 evidence, not its weight."); State v. McKnight, 352 S.C. 635, 642, 576 S.E.2d 168, 171 (2003) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to produce evidence of the offense charged."); Welch, 342 S.C. at 300, 536 S.E.2d at 418 ("This [c]ourt will reverse the trial court only when there is no evidence to support the ruling below."); id. at 300, 536 S.E.2d at 419 ("When considering directed verdict and JNOV motions, neither the trial court nor the appellate court has authority to decide credibility issues or to resolve conflicts in the testimony or evidence."); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-30(1) (Supp. 2016) (defining a sexually violent predator as a person who "(a) has been convicted of a sexually violent offense; and (b) suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for long-term control, care, and treatment"); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-30(9) (Supp. 2016) (explaining a person is "likely to engage in acts of sexual violence" if his "propensity to commit acts of sexual violence is of such a degree as to pose a menace to the health and safety of others"). AFFIRMED. LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In re Lard

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Aug 2, 2017
Appellate Case No. 2015-001940 (S.C. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2017)
Case details for

In re Lard

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Daniel Lee Lard, Appellant.

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 2, 2017

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2015-001940 (S.C. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2017)