the [Sjtate fails to produce evidence of the offense charged.” Id. When reviewing the denial of a directed verdict motion, an appellate court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the State. Id. LAW/ANALYSIS Minor contends the family court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict. He argues Eric’s prior inconsistent statement was admitted only for impeachment purposes and should not have been considered by the family court as substantive evidence in a directed verdict mo d 642, 644 (1990) (finding exclusion of victim’s prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence was harmless error when other evidence was cumulative of statement); State v. Crawford, 362 S.C. 627, 634, 608 S.E.2d 886, 890 (Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>); State v. Caulder, 287 S.C. 507, 513, 339
holding that statement must be product of a startling event holding that a hearsay statement can itself be considered in first determining if a conspiracy existed when the statement was made holding that a statement from a conversation admitted under the stateofmind exception to the hearsay rule was nontestimonial because it was private not made under examination not contained in a formalized document such as an affidavit deposition or prior testimony transcript and not made under circumstances in which an objective person would reasonably believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial holding coconspirators later testimony did not obviate the efficacy of the first statement made closer in time to the event in question holding that in agency adjudications in which the government has not claimed privilege written reports made at the time of an event must be produced when the credibility of the witness on matters discussed in the report is in question