535 S.E.2d 126, 127 (2000) (finding the fingerprint evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt because testimony was presented the defendant had been in and around the victim’s house at least three times before the burglary)). The court noted “the State’s fingerprint expert testified she could not determine when the print was placed on the vehicle and that such a print could remain on a vehicle for an indefinite period if left undisturbed.” Id. The court found, “Because the State offered no timing evidence to contradict reasonable explanations for the presence of the fingerprint, the jury could only have guessed the fingerprint was made at the time of the crimes.” Id. at 401-02, 764 S.E.2d at 711 (citing State v. Buckmon, 347 S.C. 316, 322-23, 555 S.E.2d 402, 405 (2001) (<HOLDING>)). In Bostick, 392 S.C. at 137-38, 708 S.E.2d
holding the trial court properly denied defendants motion for judgment of acquittal although defendant offered evidence as to how his fingerprints were placed on a candy box found at the scene of the crime holding that the defendant was guilty of leaving the scene because the injured party and a police officer were present at the scene within a reasonable time after the accident holding denial of jury trial was harmless because evidence was insufficient to create issue of fact for submission to jury and insurer would have been entitled to directed verdict holding a defendant was entitled to a directed verdict when none of the evidence presented by the state placed the defendant at the crime scene and the jury was left to speculate as to the defendants guilt holding that some evidence was presented to support the jurys verdict that defendant breached contract and therefore trial court did not err in denying defendants motion for directed verdict or jnov