State v. Flood, No. 19309

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtLITTLEJOHN; MOSS
Citation184 S.E.2d 549,257 S.C. 141
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. William A. FLOOD, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 19309
Decision Date03 November 1971

Page 549

184 S.E.2d 549
257 S.C. 141
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
William A. FLOOD, Appellant.
No. 19309.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Nov. 3, 1971.

Page 550

Jack F. McGuinn and Patrick E. Treacy, Columbia, for appellant.

Sol. John W. Foard, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.

[257 S.C. 142] LITTLEJOHN, Justice:

The defendant, William A. Flood, was tried in the Court of General Sessions for Richland County on December 15 [257 S.C. 143] and 16, 1970, and convicted of violating Section 32--1492.1 of the 1962 Code, making it unlawful to possess and sell marihuana. He has appealed the conviction and sentence to this court.

The code section involved reads in part as follows:

's 32--1492.1. Unlawful sale of certain drugs; penalties; presumption from possession.--It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, offer for sale or possess for sale any cocaine, alpha- or beta-eucaine, opium, morphine, heroin, isonipecaine, marihuana, LSD or other narcotics or drugs of like character or their compounds, except as authorized by law.'

The facts in the case are simple and not greatly, if at all, in dispute. The evidence shows that witness Gaines, an undercover agent, went to the home of the defendant on more than one occasion and sought to buy marihuana. Efforts to purchase were unsuccessful until November 10, 1970. On that date, in a grocery store parking lot, the defendant sold Gaines more than a pound of marihuana for $180. The defendand was arrested on November 14 and charged with possession and sale of marihuana. The defendant represented the product sold to be marihuana; Mr. Gaines testified that he recognized it as being marihuana; Lt. Clark of the Columbia police department testified that he field-tested it with a testing kit and determined that it was marihuana; Lt. Wilson of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division conducted a laboratory test and determined that it was marihuana. The defendant did not testify. His wife was the only witness presented by the defense. Her testimony was that Mr. Gaines came to her house several

Page 551

times trying to buy marihuana and that the defendant did not sell it to him on those occasions.

On November 19 the defendant was notified of a preliminary hearing before the magistrate; the hearing was held November 23, at which time he was bound over for trial. On December 8 the defendant moved the trial court for discovery and a bill of particulars. He sought a complete inventory of all the State's physical evidence, inspection of such [257 S.C. 144] evidence by experts for the defendant, a copy of all laboratory rests and opinions of experts for the State, a list of the State's witnesses and a brief outline of their expected testimony. He also sought to take depositions of the State's witnesses. The motions were denied.

At the hearing on the motions, in the absence of the jury, the solicitor made his complete file available to defense counsel and gave the names of the State's witnesses. The solicitor stated that his policy of making his file available to defense counsel was well known among members of the bar. Apparently counsel for the defense had not taken advantage of such, and had not previously asked for a sample of the marihuana so that chemical tests could be made.

The motion made December 8 was heard on December 15. Counsel for the defense sought a continuance so that chemical tests could be made. The record of the hearing reveals that law enforcement officers, using a search warrant, searched the residence of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • State v. Johnson, Appellate Case No. 2014-001219
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 30, 2018
    ...to create prejudice in the minds of the jurors." (quoting State v. Cassel , 48 Wis.2d 619, 180 N.W.2d 607, 611 (1970) ) ); id . at 153, 184 S.E.2d at 549 (affirming the denial of defendant's motion for mistrial noting defendant presented no proof the incident prejudiced the minds of the jur......
  • State v. Jones, No. 21066
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 11, 1979
    ...is afforded a preliminary hearing so that he can be apprised of the nature of the State's evidence. State v. Flood, [273 S.C. 727] 257 S.C. 141, 184 S.E.2d 549 (1971). The accused may not offer any evidence, but is allowed to cross examine the witnesses presented by the State in its attempt......
  • State v. Johnson, Appellate Case No. 2014-001219
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 31, 2018
    ...and less likely to create prejudice in the minds of the jurors." (quoting State v. Cassel, 180 N.W.2d 607, 611 (1970))); id. at 153, 184 S.E.2d at 549 (affirming the denial of defendant's motion for mistrial noting defendant presented no proof the incident prejudiced the minds of the jurors......
  • State v. Kuntsman, No. 94-1269
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 12, 1994
    ...489 U.S. 1059, 109 S.Ct. 1327, 103 L.Ed.2d 595 (1989); United States v. Desantis, 802 F.Supp. 794, 798 (E.D.N.Y.1992); State v. Flood, 257 S.C. 141, 184 S.E.2d 549, 551-52 (1971); Bartlett, 626 So.2d at 1042. Furthermore, unlike Florida and a very few other States, the vast majority of the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • State v. Johnson, Appellate Case No. 2014-001219
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 30, 2018
    ...to create prejudice in the minds of the jurors." (quoting State v. Cassel , 48 Wis.2d 619, 180 N.W.2d 607, 611 (1970) ) ); id . at 153, 184 S.E.2d at 549 (affirming the denial of defendant's motion for mistrial noting defendant presented no proof the incident prejudiced the minds of the jur......
  • State v. Jones, No. 21066
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 11, 1979
    ...is afforded a preliminary hearing so that he can be apprised of the nature of the State's evidence. State v. Flood, [273 S.C. 727] 257 S.C. 141, 184 S.E.2d 549 (1971). The accused may not offer any evidence, but is allowed to cross examine the witnesses presented by the State in its attempt......
  • State v. Johnson, Appellate Case No. 2014-001219
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 31, 2018
    ...and less likely to create prejudice in the minds of the jurors." (quoting State v. Cassel, 180 N.W.2d 607, 611 (1970))); id. at 153, 184 S.E.2d at 549 (affirming the denial of defendant's motion for mistrial noting defendant presented no proof the incident prejudiced the minds of the jurors......
  • State v. Kuntsman, No. 94-1269
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 12, 1994
    ...489 U.S. 1059, 109 S.Ct. 1327, 103 L.Ed.2d 595 (1989); United States v. Desantis, 802 F.Supp. 794, 798 (E.D.N.Y.1992); State v. Flood, 257 S.C. 141, 184 S.E.2d 549, 551-52 (1971); Bartlett, 626 So.2d at 1042. Furthermore, unlike Florida and a very few other States, the vast majority of the ......
  • 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