State v. Metze

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

The State, Respondent,

v.

Mary Ruth Metze, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County
 Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2008-MO-010
Heard January 10, 2008 Filed February 11, 2008  

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Shawn L. Reeves, Assistant Attorney General Michelle J. Parsons, all of Columbia, and  Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Bell v. Clinton Oil Mill, 129 S.C. 242, 124 S.E. 7 (1924) (to constitute breach of trust with fraudulent intent as to property received in trust, there must be an appropriation thereof, accompanied by a fraudulent purpose to destroy the right of the true owner); and State v. Parris, 363 S.C. 477, 611 S.E.2d 501 (2005) (on appeal from the denial of a directed verdict, an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and if there is any direct evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, the Court must find the case was properly submitted to the jury).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, PLEICONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.