I respectfully dissent, and would affirm the holding of the Court of Appeals that Ballenger was entitled to have his motion for a directed verdict granted.
A close reading of the record convinces me that the Court of Appeals read it correctly. Detective Bowser retraced his chase of Ballenger, and found no cocaine. He then pointed out to Detective Brown the spot where Ballenger had scaled the fence. After going to that spot, Detective Brown looked around, and in about a minute spotted the bag containing cocaine lying approximately five feet from the fence. The majority opinion of this Court misreads the record when it states the bag was found in the exact spot where Ballenger landed.
Furthermore, the majority relies upon “drug profile testimony” and testimony that Ballenger appeared to be involved in a drug transaction and that he ran when he saw the unmarked police car approaching. While such evidence may raise a suspicion of guilt, “mere suspicion alone is insufficient to send the case to the jury.” State v. Barksdale, 311 S.C. 210, 428 S.E. (2d) 498 (Ct. App. 1993). In my opinion, the record reflects no substantial evidence that Ballenger ever possessed this cocaine, and therefore was entitled to have his directed verdict motion granted. State v. Kimbrell, 294 S.C. 51, 362 S.E. (2d) 630 (1987); State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 379 S.E. (2d) 888 (1989).
I am persuaded that the Court of Appeals has correctly applied the law to the facts of this case. Therefore, I would affirm.