State v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 06 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. 2282,2282
• Citation: 317 S.C. 449,454 S.E.2d 899
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Paul V. CAMPBELL, Appellant. . Heard
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

Page 899

454 S.E.2d 899

317 S.C. 449

The STATE, Respondent, v. Paul V. CAMPBELL, Appellant.

No. 2282.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard Dec. 6, 1994.

Decided Dec. 28, 1994.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 1995.

Certiorari Denied July 26, 1995.

Deputy Chief Atty. Joseph L. Savitz, III, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. William Edgar Salter, III, Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph J. Wilson, Conway, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Paul Campbell was convicted of distribution of crack cocaine. After the filing of an Anders brief, the South Carolina Supreme Court ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the trial court improperly admitted testimony from the informant about previous drug purchases from Campbell. Based upon our review of the record, we conclude the trial court erred in admitting the testimony. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

On the night of Campbell's arrest, Timothy Bellamy, a police informer, called a beeper number and Campbell subsequently arrived at Bellamy's home with "three little yellow rocks." Police officers arrested Campbell at the scene. One of the officer's recognized Campbell and decided it was unnecessary to restrain him during the arrest. Campbell took the alleged crack cocaine off of the coffee table and ate it. The State performed no blood tests on Campbell, or other analyses of the substance Campbell swallowed, and there is no evidence, other than the police officer's testimony that "it appeared to have the same color and the same shape as crack cocaine," that the rocks were crack cocaine.

At trial, Bellamy testified he once purchased crack cocaine from Paul Campbell on the street and that Campbell then gave him a beeper number to aid in future purchases. Bellamy further testified that Campbell delivered crack cocaine to Bellamy's home on occasions prior to the night of the arrest after Bellamy contacted him by beeper. Defense counsel objected to the testimony of prior drug purchases on the ground it improperly placed Campbell's character in issue. The court overruled the objection holding the testimony was relevant to show a scheme of acquiring and selling drugs. We reverse.

Generally, evidence of prior crimes is not admissible to prove the crime for which the defendant is charged. State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803 (1923). Evidence of other crimes is admissible when that evidence tends to establish (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others; or (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial. Id. at 416, 118 S.E. at 807. However, the evidence of prior bad acts must be relevant to prove the alleged crime. State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18, 27-28, 393 S.E.2d 364, 369 (1990), cert. denied,498 U.S. 881, 111 S.Ct. 227, 112 L.Ed.2d 182 (1990). In deciding to apply the Lyle exception for the admission of prior crimes evidence, the court must always determine if the probative value of the prior acts evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect. State v. Parker...