 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Humphries8/6/2001
Appeal From Sumter County Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge
Heard February 7, 2001
AFFIRMED
In this criminal case, Claude and Phil Humphries appeal from their convictions for trafficking marijuana on the grounds that the trial court erred in refusing to compel the State to disclose the identity of its confidential informant and in admitting evidence of other bad acts. We affirm.
FACTS/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In October of 1996, the Sumter County Sheriff's Department received a tip that a package containing illegal drugs would be delivered to C&J;Automotive from an address in California. Deputies of the sheriff's department intercepted the package while it was en route with the United Parcel Service (UPS). The package, addressed to C&J;Automotive, contained approximately 40 pounds of marijuana with a street value of approximately $60,000. Police repackaged the drugs and made a controlled delivery using a South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) agent disguised as a UPS driver. Phil accepted the package, and stated he was signing for the garage's owner, Claude. Officers then executed a search warrant and seized the package, files, ledgers, and $4,500 in U.S. currency. Both Phil and Claude were present during the search.
The Sumter County Grand Jury indicted the Humphries on charges of criminal conspiracy and trafficking in more than ten, but less than one hundred pounds of marijuana. During their trial on the trafficking charges, the Humphries moved to have the State reveal the identity of the confidential informant. After argument from both sides, the trial court refused to grant the motion, reasoning it did not have enough information to determine whether the State was required to disclose the informant's identity. The trial court also refused to exclude evidence the Humphries had trafficked marijuana on other occasions.
The Humphries were convicted of trafficking in marijuana and each sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment and required to pay a $25,000 fine. This appeal follows.
LAW/ANALYSIS
I. Confidential Informant
The Humphries argue the trial court erred by refusing to compel the State to disclose its informant's identity. We disagree.
The State is ordinarily privileged from disclosing the name of a confidential informant. State v. Wright, 322 S.C. 484, 472 S.E.2d 642 (Ct. App. 1996). However, the State may be compelled to reveal an informant's identity where the informant is either an active participant in a criminal transaction or a material witness to the question of the defendant's guilt or innocence. State v. Batson, 261 S.C. 128, 198 S.E.2d 517 (1973).
In this case, the Humphries put forth three possible grounds for compelling the State to disclose the informant's identity: the informant may have framed or mis-identified the defendants, there was no informant, or the informant was part of the drug transaction. The State asserted the informant was merely a tipster. The court found nothing to support an inference that the informant was anything other than a tipster, but agreed to revisit the issue if during trial it appeared the informant was either an active participant in the crime or a material witness on the issue of guilt or innocence.
The informant in this case merely provided law enforcement with the reasonable suspicion necessary to seize the package destined for C&J;Automotive and expose it to a drug dog. Nothing in the record indicates that the informant was present during law enforcement's inspection of the package or its controlled delivery to the garage. Accordingly, we find no error in the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|