Supreme Court of South Carolina· 7/6/2000

State v. Mitchell

Citations

535 S.E.2d 126
341 S.C. 406
2000 S.C. LEXIS 159

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

finding that when ruling on cases in which the state has relied exclusively on circumstantial evidence, appellate courts are likewise only concerned with the existence of the evidence and not its weight
holding the trial court is concerned with the existence of evidence, not with its weight, in deciding whether to grant a motion for a directed verdict
finding that fingerprint evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt because there was testimony the defendant had been in and around the victim’s house at least three times before the burglary
finding that when ruling on cases in which the state has relied exclusively on circumstantial evidence, appellate courts are likewise only concerned with the existence of the evidence and not its weight
stating the trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence and not its weight even when the prosecution relies exclusively on circumstantial evidence
stating the trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence and not its weight even when the prosecution relies exclusively on circumstantial evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Finney, Toal, Moore, Waller, Burnett

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

34 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.