State v. Rothschild, No. 25518.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 351 S.C. 238,569 S.E.2d 346 |
| Docket Number | No. 25518. |
| Decision Date | 26 August 2002 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Edward ROTHSCHILD III, Appellant. |
351 S.C. 238
569 S.E.2d 346
v.
Edward ROTHSCHILD III, Appellant
No. 25518.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard June 25, 2002.
Decided August 26, 2002.
Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, and Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown; and Solicitor Warren B. Giese, all of Columbia, for respondent.
Justice MOORE.
Appellant was convicted of violating S.C.Code Ann. § 16-13-470(A)(4) (Supp.2001) which prohibits the possession of adulterants intended to defraud a urine drug screening test. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant owns two stores in Richland County: Nicki's Novelty Store and Michael's Lingerie and Leather Shop. An ad for Nicki's appeared in an issue of the Free Times Magazine which read: "Taking a drug test? Want to cleanse your system? We carry Readi-Clean, Carbo-Clean Plus, Quick Tabs, One Hour, Zydot, One Hour Klear, Body Flush." On October 18, 1999, in response to the ad, undercover SLED agent Joseph West was dispatched to Nicki's to purchase one of these products. Agent West purchased a product called Zydot from Nicki's1 after the store clerk assured him this product would allow him to successfully pass a drug test for marijuana. Zydot, which contains no illegal ingredients, is an adulterant used to defeat drug testing of a urine sample.
SLED subsequently seized this product and others like it from Nicki's. Invoices for these products billed to appellant were seized from appellant's other shop.
After a bench trial, appellant was found guilty of violating § 16-13-470(A)(4) which provides:
351 S.C. 241(A) It is unlawful for a person to:
(1) sell, give away, distribute, or market urine in this State or transport urine into this State with the intent of using the urine to defraud a drug or alcohol screening test;
(2) attempt to foil or defeat a drug or alcohol screening test by the substitution or spiking of a sample or the advertisement of a sample substitution or other spiking device or measure;
(3) adulterate a urine or other bodily fluid sample with the intent to defraud a drug or alcohol screening test;
(4) possess adulterants which are intended to be used to adulterate a urine or other bodily fluid sample for the purpose of defrauding a drug or alcohol screening test; or
(5) sell adulterants which are intended to be used to adulterate a urine or other bodily fluid sample for the purpose of defrauding a drug or alcohol screening test.2
(emphasis added). The trial judge found appellant knowingly possessed the prohibited adulterants and found him guilty under subsection (4).
ISSUES
1. Does § 16-13-470(A)(4) violate the First Amendment protection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cherry, No. 25902.
...McKnight, 352 S.C. 635, 642, 576 S.E.2d 168, 171, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 819, 124 S.Ct. 101, 157 L.Ed.2d 36 (2003); State v. Rothschild, 351 S.C. 238, 243, 569 S.E.2d 346, 348 (2002). When reviewing a denial of a directed verdict, this Court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferen......
-
State v. Moore, No. 4247.
...fails to produce evidence of the offense charged. State v. McKnight, 352 S.C. 635, 642, 576 S.E.2d 168, 171 (2003); State v. Rothschild, 351 S.C. 238, 243, 569 S.E.2d 346, 348 (2002); State v. Padgett, 354 S.C. 268, 580 S.E.2d 159 (Ct. App.2003); State v. Wilds, 355 S.C. 269, 274, 584 S.E.2......
-
State v. Al-Amin, No. 3602.
...verdict when the State fails to produce any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence of the offense charged. State v. Rothschild, 351 S.C. 238, 569 S.E.2d 346 (2002); State v. Walker, 349 S.C. 49, 562 S.E.2d 313 In this case, the State presented substantial circumstantial evidence poin......
-
State v. Wilds, No. 3668.
...fails to produce evidence of the offense charged. State v. McKnight, 352 S.C. 635, 642, 576 S.E.2d 168, 171 (2003); State v. Rothschild, 351 S.C. 238, 243, 569 S.E.2d 346, 348 (2002). The judge should grant a directed verdict motion when the evidence merely raises a suspicion that the accus......
-
State v. Cherry, No. 25902.
...McKnight, 352 S.C. 635, 642, 576 S.E.2d 168, 171, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 819, 124 S.Ct. 101, 157 L.Ed.2d 36 (2003); State v. Rothschild, 351 S.C. 238, 243, 569 S.E.2d 346, 348 (2002). When reviewing a denial of a directed verdict, this Court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferen......
-
State v. Moore, No. 4247.
...fails to produce evidence of the offense charged. State v. McKnight, 352 S.C. 635, 642, 576 S.E.2d 168, 171 (2003); State v. Rothschild, 351 S.C. 238, 243, 569 S.E.2d 346, 348 (2002); State v. Padgett, 354 S.C. 268, 580 S.E.2d 159 (Ct. App.2003); State v. Wilds, 355 S.C. 269, 274, 584 S.E.2......
-
State v. Al-Amin, No. 3602.
...verdict when the State fails to produce any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence of the offense charged. State v. Rothschild, 351 S.C. 238, 569 S.E.2d 346 (2002); State v. Walker, 349 S.C. 49, 562 S.E.2d 313 In this case, the State presented substantial circumstantial evidence poin......
-
State v. Wilds, No. 3668.
...fails to produce evidence of the offense charged. State v. McKnight, 352 S.C. 635, 642, 576 S.E.2d 168, 171 (2003); State v. Rothschild, 351 S.C. 238, 243, 569 S.E.2d 346, 348 (2002). The judge should grant a directed verdict motion when the evidence merely raises a suspicion that the accus......