context: Viewed in the light most favorable to the state, sufficient evidence existed to support denial of Harry's directed verdict motion.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.parenthetical: in civil arson case, court affirmed denial of insured's directed verdict motion where insurer presented evidence fire at claimant's home was intentionally set and claimant was experiencing financial difficulty
citation_a.sentence: See State v. Chisholm, 187 S.C. 275, 197 S.E. 308 (1938) (affirming arson conviction based on circumstantial evidence that included foreclosure proceedings shortly before fire, and changes in insurance coverage by defendant’s mother to include coverage for all personalty); cf. Carter v. American Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 297 S.C. 218, 375 S.E. (2d) 356 (Ct. App. 1988) (in civil arson case, court affirmed denial of insured’s directed verdict motion where insurer presented evidence fire at claimant’s home was intentionally set and claimant was experiencing financial difficulty).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: affirming arson conviction based on circumstantial evidence that included foreclosure proceedings shortly before fire, and changes in insurance coverage by defendant's mother to include coverage for all personalty
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Chisholm, 187 S.C. 275, 197 S.E. 308 (1938) (affirming arson conviction based on circumstantial evidence that included foreclosure proceedings shortly before fire, and changes in insurance coverage by defendant’s mother to include coverage for all personalty); cf. Carter v. American Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 297 S.C. 218, 375 S.E. (2d) 356 (Ct. App. 1988) (in civil arson case, court affirmed denial of insured’s directed verdict motion where insurer presented evidence fire at claimant’s home was intentionally set and claimant was experiencing financial difficulty).