State v. Meyers, 19787

• Decision Date: 07 March 1974
• Docket Number: No. 19787,19787
• Citation: 203 S.E.2d 678,262 S.C. 222
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Prince MEYERS, Appellant.

Page 678

203 S.E.2d 678

262 S.C. 222

The STATE, Respondent, v. Prince MEYERS, Appellant.

No. 19787.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 7, 1974.

Matthew J. Perry and Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Columbia, and Zack E. Townsend, Orangeburg, for appellant.

Sol. C. LaVaun Fox, Aiken, and Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Emmet H. Clair and Robert M. Ariail, Columbia, for respondent.

LEWIS, Justice:

Appellant, Prince Meyers, was convicted of the distribution of heroin and sentenced to a term of fourteen (14) years. He argues two questions in this appeal as grounds for reversal of his conviction. The first concerns a ruling by the trial judge relative to testimony concerning a confidential informer, with whom the officers dealt; and the second with the refusal by the trial judge is recess the trial for the purpose of allowing appellant's counsel to hear a recording of a telephone conversation between appellant and one of the officers.

The State (respondent) introduced testimony showing that James M. Bolyn, Jr., an undercover agent, while accompanied by a confidential informer, purchased heroin from appellant on June 11, 1973, in Bamberg, South Carolina. Appellant relied upon the defense of alibi and produced witnesses who testified in support of his contention that he was in New York at the time of the alleged sale in Bamberg.

The undercover agent testified at the trial that he was accompanied by a 'confidential reliable informer,' when he purchased the heroin from appellant. Appellant's objection to the manner in which the witness characterized the person who accompanied him was overruled and, upon the basis of that objection, appellant now asserts, as his first question, that 'the court erred in refusing to require witnesses for the State to reveal the identity of the so-called confidential reliable informant.'

The record shows that the question now argued was not raised in the lower court. In making the basic objection, counsel stated: '. . . we would object to the manner in which the other individual is characterized. He can either say he went with someone else, or name that person, but we object to this witness' conclusion concerning the other person.' And further in the colloquy between the court and counsel with reference to the objection, counsel stated: '. . . but we now object to the manner in which this witness characterizes the other individual.'

The record shows that the objection of appellant was directed solely to the manner in which the witness characterized the informer, that is, as a 'confidential reliable informer'; and at no time was the objection based upon the ground that the identity of the informer should be revealed.

Since the objection now urged under appellant's first question was not asserted on the trial, it is not properly before this Court. State v. Jordan, 258 S.C. 340, 188 S.E.2d 780.

Under the remaining exception, appellant assigns error in the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion to recess the trial so that appellant's counsel could hear a recording of a telephone conversation between appellant and one of the officers.

Appellant was cross-examined concerning a telephone conversation which he had with a man named Bobby on June 21, 1973, while appellant was in New York. Appellant remembered that the call was long distance and the substance of the conversation, but denied that he had admitted in the conversation that he had previously sold the heroin on June 11th. Appellant was then put on notice that he would be contradicted as to the latter denial.

The undercover agent, James M. Bolyn, Jr., was subsequently recalled as a reply witness and testified that he was...