Opinion
2014-UP-385
11-05-2014
The State, Respondent, v. Ralph B. Hayes, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2012-213261
Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Kaycie S. Timmons, all of Columbia; and Solicitor W. Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Heard September 11, 2014
Appeal From Greenville County G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge.
Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Kaycie S. Timmons, all of Columbia; and Solicitor W. Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM:
Ralph B. Hayes appeals his convictions for murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, arguing he should have received a directed verdict of acquittal because the State failed to present sufficient evidence of his guilt. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Logan, 405 S.C. 83, 97, 747 S.E.2d 444, 451 (2013) ("Unlike direct evidence, evaluation of circumstantial evidence requires jurors to find that the proponent of the evidence has connected collateral facts in order to prove the proposition propounded—a process not required when evaluating direct evidence."); State v. Odems, 395 S.C. 582, 586, 720 S.E.2d 48, 50 (2011) ("[I]f there is any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, an appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to the jury."); State v. Al-Amin, 353 S.C. 405, 413, 578 S.E.2d 32, 36 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Flight from prosecution is admissible as evidence of guilt."); State v. Caulder, 287 S.C. 507, 516, 339 S.E.2d 876, 882 (Ct. App. 1986) ("By incriminating response we refer to any response—whether inculpatory or exculpatory—that the prosecution may seek to introduce at trial." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C. J, and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ, concur