From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Kelly

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
Apr 11, 2012
Memorandum Opinion No. 2012-MO-010 (S.C. Apr. 11, 2012)

Opinion

2012-MO-010

04-11-2012

The State, Respondent, v. William Kelly, Appellant.

Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer and Appellate Defender Susan B. Hackett, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Chief Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, Solicitor William Benjamin Rogers, Jr., for Respondent.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Heard April 4, 2012

Appeal from Darlington County, J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer and Appellate Defender Susan B. Hackett, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Chief Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, Solicitor William Benjamin Rogers, Jr., for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

William Kelly appeals the denial of his motion for a directed verdict, arguing the State did not produce sufficient evidence demonstrating that the acts Kelly allegedly committed were done in Darlington County. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brisbon, 323 S.C. 324, 327, 474 S.E.2d 433, 435 (1996) ("Evidence of venue, though slight, is sufficient in the absence of conflicting evidence and may be proved by circumstantial evidence as well as direct evidence."); State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 327, 334, 468 S.E.2d 626, 630 (1996) ("[V]enue, like jurisdiction, in a criminal case need not be affirmatively proved, and circumstantial evidence of venue, though slight, is sufficient to establish jurisdiction."); 21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 469 ("Where uncertainty exists, the accused may be tried in any county in which evidence indicates the crime might have been committed.").

AFFIRMED.

PLEICONES, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, BEATTY, KITTREDGE, HEARN, JJ., and Acting Justice James E. Moore, concur.


Summaries of

State v. Kelly

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
Apr 11, 2012
Memorandum Opinion No. 2012-MO-010 (S.C. Apr. 11, 2012)
Case details for

State v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. William Kelly, Appellant.

Court:THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Date published: Apr 11, 2012

Citations

Memorandum Opinion No. 2012-MO-010 (S.C. Apr. 11, 2012)