Circumstantial evidence insufficient to support murder conviction

The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed murder and weapon convictions, holding that the State’s circumstantial evidence created only a suspicion of guilt and was insufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was convicted after his girlfriend was found dead from a contact gunshot wound in a motel room where the couple had been living. No murder weapon was recovered, no eyewitness connected the defendant to the shooting and investigators found no signs of a struggle. The shell casing recovered at the scene contained only the victim’s fingerprints, and officers found no gunshot residue on the defendant’s hands.

The State relied on circumstantial evidence, including testimony that the defendant had a controlling relationship with the victim, possessed a handgun similar to one that could have fired the fatal bullet, was the last known person to see the victim alive, changed shirts the morning of the shooting and had two particles of gunshot residue on his shorts. The State also introduced DNA evidence showing the defendant’s DNA in blood found on the motel room door.

The court concluded that evidence did not rise above suspicion. The gunshot residue expert acknowledged the residue was highly transferable, and the DNA evidence was consistent with the defendant’s testimony that he touched the victim after discovering her body. The court also noted evidence supporting the defendant’s alibi, including cell-site data, surveillance footage and testimony from witnesses who placed him away from the motel for much of the relevant period. The pathologist could not determine the victim’s time of death, further weakening the State’s theory.

Because the State failed to present substantial evidence from which guilt could reasonably be inferred, the trial court should have granted a directed verdict.

The 9 page opinion is The State v. Redding, Lawyers Weekly No. 011-027-26.