State v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 09 March 1995
• Docket Number: No. 2325,2325
• Citation: 318 S.C. 194,456 S.E.2d 442
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Vivian JOHNSON, Appellant. . Heard

Page 442

456 S.E.2d 442

The STATE, Respondent, v. Vivian JOHNSON, Appellant.

No. 2325.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard March 9, 1995.

Decided March 27, 1995.

Rehearing Denied May 2, 1995.

Certiorari Denied Nov. 15, 1995.

William T. Toal and Valerie J. Rochester Young both of Johnson, Toal & Battiste, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Staff Atty. G. Thomas Chase, Columbia; and Sol. Wade S. Kolb, Jr., Sumter, for respondent.

HOWARD, Judge:

Vivian Johnson appeals her conviction for distribution of crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine within one-half mile of a school. Johnson asserts error in the introduction into evidence of the crack cocaine, arguing the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody. Johnson also asserts the trial court erred by admitting prejudicial testimony describing the area relevant to the drug transaction as a high drug traffic area. We affirm.

On August 2, 1993, a confidential informant, Richard Rogers, purchased three "rocks" of crack cocaine from Johnson as part of a larger, on-going, sting operation in Sumter County. The purchase was videotaped by Rogers. Shortly after the transaction occurred, Rogers turned the drugs over to the surveillance officer, Detective Mark Rosensteel, at a pre-designated location. Rosensteel testified he turned the drugs over to Investigator Allen Dailey, the evidence custodian, at the end of that day. However, Dailey testified that he received the drugs from Rosensteel on August 4, 1993. Dailey placed the drugs in a drug analysis security envelope and subsequently delivered the envelope to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) on August 24, 1993. Kimberly Thigpen, a chemist at SLED, testified Dailey delivered the envelope to her on August 24. Upon analysis, Thigpen found the substances in the envelope to be crack cocaine. The evidence remained in her custody until the trial. Johnson argues the chain of custody was broken for a two day period between August 2 and August 4, and therefore the admission of the crack cocaine into evidence was erroneous.

The admission of evidence is in the sound discretion of the trial judge whose decision will not be overturned absent an error of law resulting in undue prejudice. State v. Johnson, --- S.C. ----, 427 S.E.2d 718 (Ct.App.1993). Because evidence involving drugs may easily be tampered with, the party offering the drugs into evidence must establish a chain of custody as far as practicable. See State v. Williams, 297 S.C. 290, 376 S.E.2d 773 (1989); Benton v. Pellum, 232 S.C. 26, 100 S.E.2d 534 (1957). However, the proof of the chain of custody "need not negate all possibility of tampering." Williams, 297 S.C. at 293, 376 S.E.2d at 774. Instead, " '[w]here the substance analyzed has passed through several hands the evidence must not leave it to conjecture as to who had it and what was done with it between the taking and analysis.' " Benton, 232 S.C. at 33-34, 100 S.E.2d at 537 (citation omitted).

The State established a continuous chain of custody through the testimony of all people who had control and possession of the evidence. Although a discrepancy existed as to the dates Dailey received the evidence, no evidence was presented to indicate the drugs were not within the control of identifiable people during the entire time. A reconciliation of this discrepancy was not necessary to establish the chain of custody, but merely reflected upon the credibility of the evidence rather than its admissibility. See State v. Kahan, 268 S.C. 240, 233 S.E.2d 293 (1977); State v. Wells, --- S.C. ----, 426 S.E.2d 814 (Ct.App.1992).

Johnson next argues the trial court erred by allowing testimony referring to the area where...