State v. Kimbrell, 22800
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | CHANDLER; NESS |
| Citation | 294 S.C. 51,362 S.E.2d 630 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Vicki KIMBRELL, Appellant. . Heard |
| Docket Number | No. 22800,22800 |
| Decision Date | 22 September 1987 |
Page 630
v.
Vicki KIMBRELL, Appellant.
Decided Nov. 23, 1987.
[294 S.C. 52] Jack B. Swerling, of Swerling & Harpootlian, F. Patrick Hubbard, USC School of Law, Columbia, and George W. Speedy, of Furman, Speedy & Stegner, Camden, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Norman Mark Rapoport, Columbia, and Sol. William L. Ferguson, York, for respondent.
CHANDLER, Justice:
Appellant Vicki Kimbrell (Kimbrell) was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
[294 S.C. 53] FACTS
On March 31, 1986, a confidential informant (Roberts) arranged a meeting between an undercover police officer (O'Donald) and Kimbrell's ex-husband, Gene Kimbrell (Gene), a suspected drug dealer. At 5:00 that afternoon, Roberts and O'Donald went to Gene's mobile home where O'Donald bought an ounce of cocaine from Gene and agreed to purchase cocaine every two weeks. Although Kimbrell was present during these discussions, she did not participate in the drug transaction.
Page 631
Based upon the information O'Donald had acquired during the March 31 meeting, narcotics officers obtained a warrant to search Gene's mobile home. They then planned a "buy-bust" operation. Thereafter, O'Donald called Gene and arranged for a buy of both cocaine and marijuana.
O'Donald, wearing a hidden transmitter, arrived at Gene's mobile home on the afternoon of April 3. When he and Gene went into the kitchen, O'Donald saw a small amount of cocaine on a plate and a zip-lock bag of cocaine on the kitchen counter. A set of scales was on the kitchen table.
When O'Donald asked to see the marijuana, Gene led him down the hallway towards the back door. Gene stopped at the bedroom door, knocked, and told Kimbrell "the toot [cocaine] is laying on the table, we're going outside, watch it." Kimbrell, carrying a beige pocketbook, then walked out of the bedroom and into the kitchen.
Gene and O'Donald proceeded outside and viewed the marijuana in Gene's pickup truck. When they reentered the mobile home, Kimbrell returned to the bedroom and closed the door.
O'Donald then transmitted a signal to the other officers that they should commence the bust. Kimbrell ran out from the bedroom shouting that a car had just pulled up, after which she ran back into the bedroom and closed the door. Upon their arrival, the other officers found Kimbrell sitting on the bed, the butt of a pistol protruding from her beige pocketbook.
[294 S.C. 54] ISSUES
By her appeal Kimbrell alleges the trial judge erred in:
1. Denying the motion for directed verdict.
2. Excluding testimony concerning Kimbrell's ability to comprehend.
3. Admitting into evidence a pistol.
4. Denying requested jury instructions.
I. DIRECTED VERDICT
In reviewing the denial of a motion for directed verdict in a criminal case, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the State. A jury issue is created when there is any direct or circumstantial evidence which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused. State v. Owens, 291 S.C. 116, 352 S.E.2d 474 (1987); State v. Mathis, 287 S.C. 589, 340 S.E.2d 538 (1986).
A person who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of ten or more grams of cocaine is guilty of trafficking in cocaine. S.C.Code Ann. § 44-53-370(e)(2) (1985). The thrust of Kimbrell's directed verdict motion is that the State failed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cherry, 3406.
...207 S.E.2d at 94-95 (emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also State v. Crane, 296 S.C. 336, 372 S.E.2d 587 (1988); State v. Kimbrell, 294 S.C. 51, 362 S.E.2d 630 (1987); State v. Owens, 291 S.C. 116, 352 S.E.2d 474 (1987); State v. Mathis, 287 S.C. 589, 340 S.E.2d 538 (1986); State v. I......
-
State v. Cherry, 3296.
...the same in each criminal case. See Winship, 397 U.S. at 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068. 353 S.C. 286 The last two cases cited, State v. Kimbrell, 294 S.C. 51, 362 S.E.2d 630 (1987) and State v. Brownlee, 318 S.C. 34, 455 S.E.2d 704 (1995), are also inapplicable, because they deal with a complete failu......
-
State v. Workman
...of the law when the trial court's given charge did not adequately cover the substance of the defendant's request. State v. Kimbrell, 294 S.C. 51, 56, 362 S.E.2d 630, 632 (1987). In State v. Rye, the supreme court reversed a conviction after the trial court's instructions on the defenses rai......
-
Goldsmith v. Witkowski, 91-7578
...and control, or the right to exercise dominion and control, over the drugs. Ellis, 207 S.E.2d at 413; see also State v. Kimbrell, 294 S.C. 51, 362 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1987) (holding that the possession element of the crime of trafficking in cocaine requires proof of power and intent to control......