Opinion ID: 1300993
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: scope of conspiracy

Text: Appellants argue that the trial court erred in allowing the State to add the quantity of drugs involved in various separate substantive offenses to determine the amount necessary to meet the statutory definition of conspiring to traffic and in setting the appropriate penalty. S.C.Code Ann. § 44-53-370(e) (Supp.1992). We disagree. First, we point out the applicable statute as amended created statutory offenses for conspiring to sell, manufacture, cultivate, deliver, purchase, or bring into this state ten pounds or more of marijuana and ten grams or more of cocaine. S.C.Code Ann. § 44-53-370(e)(1) and (2) (Supp.1992). Violations are known as trafficking in marijuana and trafficking in cocaine, respectively. The precise quantity of drugs involved over and above the ten pounds of marijuana or ten grams of cocaine is pertinent, not to the classification of trafficking, but to the minimum penalty proscribed. Id. Again, Appellants' argument misconstrues the purpose of admitting evidence of the separate substantive offenses in a conspiracy trial. The overt acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy are not elements of the crime. [1] Under South Carolina law, a conspiracy does not require overt acts. State v. Ferguson, 221 S.C. 300, 70 S.E.2d 355, cert. denied, 344 U.S. 830, 73 S.Ct. 35, 97 L.Ed. 646 (1952). The crime of conspiracy is the agreement or mutual understanding. Ameker, supra . The substantive crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy constitute circumstantial evidence of the existence of the conspiracy, its object, and scope. State v. Amerson, 428 S.E.2d 871 (S.C.Sup.Ct.1993). The State is entitled to prove the whole history of the conspiracy, from its commencement to its conclusion, as well as overt acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy since from those overt acts, an inference may be drawn as to the existence and object of the conspiracy. State v. Hightower, 221 S.C. 91, 69 S.E.2d 363 (1952). Further, the State is permitted great latitude in the introduction of circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of a conspiratorial agreement. Id. Accordingly, we find no error in using evidence of the amount of drugs involved in various transactions as proof of the scope of the conspiracy for the purpose of establishing the elements of the crime of conspiring to traffic under S.C.Code Ann. § 44-53-370(e)(1) & (2) (Supp.1992). [2]