 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Russell4/30/2001
Ann. § 56-5-2930 (Supp. 2000); State v. Salisbury, 343 S.C. 520, 541 S.E.2d 247 (2001); see also Osborne, 335 S.C. at 180, 516 S.E.2d at 205 (quoting State v. Townsend, 321 S.C. 55, 58, 467 S.E.2d 138, 140 (Ct. App. 1996)). Russell admits that he was highly intoxicated from the time of the party through his arrest, such that his faculties were materially and appreciably impaired. We have already determined there was substantial independent evidence corroborating the fact that he was driving the car. The position and condition of the vehicle provides substantial circumstantial evidence that it was being operated in South Carolina. Therefore, the corpus delicti of the crime has been established. Furthermore, taking the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a factual issue was presented as to Russell's guilt, precluding a directed verdict.
AFFIRMED.
CONNOR and HUFF, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|