State v. Pollard, 19711
| Decision Date | 30 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 19711,19711 |
| Citation | 261 S.C. 389,200 S.E.2d 233 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Jimmy Calvin POLLARD, Appellant. |
Grover S. Parnell, Jr., and Randolph W. Hunter, Asst. Public Defender, Greenville, for appellant.
Sol. C. Victor Pyle and Asst. Sol. William W. Wilkins, Jr., Greenville, Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Emmet H. Clair and Robert M. Ariail, Columbia, for respondent.
The defendant Pollard appeals from his conviction in the Greenville County Court on a charge of unlawful distribution of heroin. A review of the record and full consideration of his contentions result in the inescapable conclusion that his appeal is totally without merit.
As reflected by the agreed statement of the case, the State presented evidence establishing that a law officer purchased two glassing bags of white powder from appellant and a co-defendant Dean, and that the powder contained therein was analyzed by a SLED chemist who found the powder to be a heroin-quinine mixture. Appellant contends, nevertheless, that he was entitled to a directed verdict of not guilty because admittedly the bags of powder were handed to the officer by his co-defendant who likewise immediately received from the officer the money in payment therefor. It is sufficient to say that there is abundant evidence in the record tending to establish not only Pollard's presence but his active participation in the crime.
In considering a motion for a directed verdict of not guilty, it is elementary that the evidence has to be viewed in the light most favorable to the State and that the trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight, and if there is any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused, or from which guilt may fairly and logically be deduced, it is the trial court's duty to submit the case to the jury. See cases collected in West's South Carolina Digest, Criminal Law k753.
Appellant's only other contention is that the glassine bags containing the heroin were introduced into evidence over his objection prior to the State establishing a complete chain of evidence tracing possession of the substance from the time of sale until its presentation in court. The substance was offered in evidence through the chemist who analyzed it, and prior thereto the State had proved a complete chain of evidence tracing possession of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cribb
...v. Williams, 297 S.C. 290, 293, 376 S.E.2d 773, 774 (1989); State v. Kahan, 268 S.C. 240, 233 S.E.2d 293 (1977); State v. Pollard, 261 S.C. 389, 200 S.E.2d 233 (1973); Benton v. Pellum, 232 S.C. 26, 100 S.E.2d 534 Interestingly enough, we dealt with the reverse issue in a very recent decisi......
-
State v. Kahan, 20383
...body to the final custodian by whom it is analyzed." 232 S.C. at 33, 100 S.E.2d at 537 (emphasis added). See also State v. Pollard, 261 S.C. 389, 200 S.E.2d 233 (1973). Agent Pattillo testified he performed the Walker residue test on the gown for the presence of gunpowder residue and none w......
-
State v. Rogers, 3854.
...without a proper foundation, the foundation was ultimately provided, and there would be no prejudice to Rogers. See State v. Pollard, 261 S.C. 389, 200 S.E.2d 233 (1973) (finding no prejudice where drugs were entered into evidence prior to testimony of a complete chain of custody because th......