State v. Beam, No. 3006.

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtHUFF.
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. William Joseph BEAM, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 3006.
Decision Date01 June 1999

336 S.C. 45
518 S.E.2d 297

The STATE, Respondent,
v.
William Joseph BEAM, Appellant

No. 3006.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard April 13, 1999.

Decided June 1, 1999.


336 S.C. 47
T. Kirk Truslow, of North Myrtle Beach, for appellant

Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph J. Wilson, of Conway, for respondent.

HUFF, Judge:

William Joseph Beam appeals his convictions on one felony count and two misdemeanor counts of transfer of recorded sounds. We affirm.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Frederick Beasley, an employee of the Motion Picture Association's film security office received a complaint that Video Review of Myrtle Beach was selling or renting pirated video

336 S.C. 48
tapes. Thereafter, on September 21, 1995, Beasley rented three videos from Video Review. Trained to differentiate between legitimate and pirated videos through visual inspection of their cassettes, Beasley determined each video he rented was pirated. Beasley took the tapes to the Myrtle Beach Police Department

On October 5, Beasley returned the three tapes to Video Review and rented three more tapes and purchased one tape. Using the same visual inspection methods, he determined each of the four tapes he obtained that day were also pirated. Beasley then took the tapes to Detective John King of the Myrtle Beach Police Department.

On October 25, Beasley accompanied police officers to Video Review as they executed a search warrant. Beasley and Ray Bowley, a contract employee of the Motion Picture Association, visually examined the tapes in the inventory and found more than two hundred counterfeit tapes. The majority of the counterfeit tapes were located in the new release section. The Horry County Grand jury indicted Beam, the owner of Video Review, with one felony count and two misdemeanor counts of transfer of recorded sounds.1

The judge qualified Beasley as an expert in identifying the validity of video tapes. Beasley testified that a legitimate film can be removed from its original cassette, placed in another cassette, and still be a legitimate video. This might be done if the cassette is damaged. If a cassette were changed, a visual examination of the cassette could no longer determine whether the video was legitimate. During cross-examination, Beam's counsel asked Beasley about a switch point test. Beasley stated that a switch point test could be used to determine whether the film in a cassette was legal or pirated. He stated that the test could be performed with a cross pulse monitor, but that he had no expertise with that machine.

The judge qualified Bowley as an expert in trademark, copyright, and piracy issues. During cross-examination, Beam's counsel also asked Bowley about the switch point test.

336 S.C. 49
Bowley was familiar with the test and the machine used to conduct it. He stated an experienced technician could determine absolutely whether the film was genuine or counterfeit. Beam's counsel then asked whether Bowley performed a switch point test on the tapes from Video Review. Bowley admitted not performing the test on any of the tapes. The transcript then reflects the following
Q: Okay. Well, this jury's got a tough decision to make today. Don't you think that it would require you to do that test if that's available to shut the door on whether or not you've got a counterfeit tape or not when you've got that—
A: Would you like for me to do it now?
Q. Have you got that technology available to you?
A. That can be done.
The court: Right now?
Defense Counsel: Nothing further, your honor.
The court: It can be done right now? With the equipment that's in the courtroom?
The witness: It can be arranged to be done this afternoon.

The assistant solicitor then asked Bowley if he had the equipment to perform the test. Bowley stated that he did and would be willing to perform the test. Bowley was permitted to perform the test over defense objections. Additionally, the judge denied Beam's motion for a mistrial. Bowley tested two tapes and determined both contained counterfeit films.

The jury returned guilty verdicts on all three counts. The trial judge fined Beam $1,000 each for both of his misdemeanor convictions. For the felony conviction, the judge sentenced Beam to five years imprisonment and fined him $100,000, suspended upon service of six months and payment of a $25,000 fine. He also ordered Beam to pay $6,197.97 in restitution to the Motion Picture Association. This appeal follows.

LAW/ANALYSIS

I. The Indictment

Beam first argues on appeal that the indictment against him did not provide the court with subject matter

336 S.C. 50
jurisdiction to convict him of the transfer of recorded sounds because the indictment did not allege Beam acted with knowledge, which is an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 practice notes
  • State v. Rice, No. 4300.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 5, 2007
    ...404, 408 (1991) ("Since appellant opened the door to this evidence, he cannot complain of prejudice from its admission."); State v. Beam, 336 S.C. 45, 53, 518 S.E.2d 297, 301 (Ct.App.1999) ("Beam cannot complain about the admission of evidence where he opened the door to the evidence."). In......
  • Jamison v. Ford Motor Co., No. 4220.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 19, 2007
    ...must request the opportunity to present an expert witness in order for the issue to be preserved for appellate review. State v. Beam, 336 S.C. 45, 51-52, 518 S.E.2d 297, 301 (Ct.App.1999). It is well settled that a reviewing court may not consider error claimed in the exclusion of testimony......
  • State v. Young, No. 3983.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 2, 2005
    ...to this evidence, he cannot complain of prejudice from its admission. Id. at 474, 409 S.E.2d at 408 (citation omitted). State v. Beam, 336 S.C. 45, 518 S.E.2d 297 (Ct.App.1999), involved a conviction of transfer of recorded sounds for pirating videotapes. The defense questioned expert Beasl......
  • State v. Reddick, No. 3448.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 19, 2002
    ...of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet." State v. Beam, 336 S.C. 45, 50, 518 S.E.2d 297, 300 (Ct.App.1999) (citation In State v. Crenshaw, 274 S.C. 475, 266 S.E.2d 61 (1980), appellants Crenshaw and Ligon were police......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • State v. Rice, No. 4300.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 5, 2007
    ...404, 408 (1991) ("Since appellant opened the door to this evidence, he cannot complain of prejudice from its admission."); State v. Beam, 336 S.C. 45, 53, 518 S.E.2d 297, 301 (Ct.App.1999) ("Beam cannot complain about the admission of evidence where he opened the door to the evidence."). In......
  • Jamison v. Ford Motor Co., No. 4220.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 19, 2007
    ...must request the opportunity to present an expert witness in order for the issue to be preserved for appellate review. State v. Beam, 336 S.C. 45, 51-52, 518 S.E.2d 297, 301 (Ct.App.1999). It is well settled that a reviewing court may not consider error claimed in the exclusion of testimony......
  • State v. Young, No. 3983.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 2, 2005
    ...to this evidence, he cannot complain of prejudice from its admission. Id. at 474, 409 S.E.2d at 408 (citation omitted). State v. Beam, 336 S.C. 45, 518 S.E.2d 297 (Ct.App.1999), involved a conviction of transfer of recorded sounds for pirating videotapes. The defense questioned expert Beasl......
  • State v. Reddick, No. 3448.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 19, 2002
    ...of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet." State v. Beam, 336 S.C. 45, 50, 518 S.E.2d 297, 300 (Ct.App.1999) (citation In State v. Crenshaw, 274 S.C. 475, 266 S.E.2d 61 (1980), appellants Crenshaw and Ligon were police......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT