§ 1-9 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence Charge—state V. Logan and State V. Herndon—must Be Given when Requested

• Library: South Carolina Requests to Charge - Criminal (SCBar) (2023 Ed.)

§ 1-9 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence Charge—State v. Logan and State v. Herndon—MUST BE GIVEN WHEN REQUESTED

There are two types of evidence which are generally presented during a trial—direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence directly proves the existence of a fact and does not require deduction. Circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating the existence of a fact.

Crimes may be proven by circumstantial evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight or value to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence, however, to the extent the State relies on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be consistent with each other, and when taken together, point conclusively to the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If these circumstances merely portray the defendant's behavior as suspicious, the proof has failed.

The State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden rests with the State regardless of whether the State relies on direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or some combination of the two.

? State v. Logan, 405 S.C. 83, 99-100, 747 S.E.2d 444, 452 (2013) ("Trial courts should not be constrained from providing a jury charge encompassing the determinations critical for analyzing circumstantial evidence as it appears in some cases. Additionally, defendants should not be restricted from...