UP-327 - State v. Williams

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals The State, Respondent, v. Detrick Tiwan Williams, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2013-000074 Appeal From York County John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-327 Submitted July 1, 2014 Filed September 3, 2014 AFFIRMED Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Detrick Tiwan Williams appeals his conviction of indecent exposure, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) ("When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight."); id. at 292-93, 625 S.E.2d at 648 ("If there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, the [trial court] must find the case was properly submitted to the jury."); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-15-130 (2003) ("It is unlawful for a person to wilfully, maliciously, and indecently expose his person in a public place, on property of others, or to the view of any person on a street or highway."); State v. Williams, 280 S.C. 305, 306-07, 312 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1984) (adopting the definition of a public place as "[a]ny place so situated that what passes there can be seen by any considerable number of persons, if they happen to look" (citations omitted)). AFFIRMED.1 FEW, C.J., and SHORT and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.