Opinion ID: 1297776
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of Conspiracy Count

Text: The State chose to indict thirty-three individuals for a conspiracy alleged to have spanned more than seven years. The indictment itself gives no indication of the State's theory or any specifics involved in the conspiracy but instead simply incorporates the language of the trafficking statute in most of its many permutations: Count OneConspiracy (Trafficking in Illegal DrugsDilaudid) S.C.Code Ann. Section 44-53-370(e)(3)(c) That Lee Edward Gunn, Evelyn S. Gunn, Olin DeWitt Thompson a/k/a Big 0, Bruce Walter Hodges, Robert Francis Leggeri a/k/a Otis, Olin Daniel Martin, Charles E. Martin a/k/a Charlie, Lee Edward Gunn Jr. a/k/a Junior, Harold Glenn Moss, Barbara Roxanne Gregory, Robert Earl Childers a/k/a Sherman, James Clifford Smith, Joe Billy Barrett a/k/a Bill, a/k/a James David Goodman, Sandra Mayo Mason a/k/a Sandy, Rodney R. Wagenknecht a/k/a Possum, Wade Hampton Bright, Jr., Patricia Suzanne Wiley La Barbera, Joseph R. La Barbera, Willie Mae Gregory a/k/a Billie, Sabrina Rochelle Gregory, Cindy Deese Faile, Christopher Lynn Hunsucker a/k/a Chris, Betty Sapp Hinson, Melanie Diane Griffin, Melody Dawn Pelzer, Bobby Wade Collins, Frank Soda, Jr., Robert Preston Algeo a/k/a Bob, Ronald Clayton Carpenter, Hazel Ruby Carpenter, Edward Joe Smith, Kenneth Lee Smith and Timothy Lee Millwood did in Cherokee and York counties, from on or about early 1982 up to and including the date of this indictment, knowingly, unlawfully and willfully conspire, confederate, agree and have tacit understanding with each other and/or other persons, whose names are both known and unknown to the State Grand Jurors, for the purpose of selling, delivering, or bringing into this State in Cherokee and York counties, or providing financial assistance or otherwise aiding and abetting the sale, delivery or bringing into this State in Cherokee and York counties, or the knowing actual or constructive possession in Cherokee and York counties of more than 28 grams of Dilaudid, a narcotic, a derivative of morphine, which is a controlled substance under provisions of Section 44-53-210, Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976), as amended, such conduct not having been authorized by law. The first issue we address is appellants' contention that this count of the indictment is so vague and overbroad that the trial court should have granted their motion to quash. We disagree. It is not necessary to detail the evidence of the conspiracy in the indictment nor to recite the facts connecting all the accused with one another in the web of the conspiracy, nor to describe the conspiracy with the same degree of particularity required in describing a substantive offense. State v. McIntire, 221 S.C. 504, 71 S.E.2d 410 (1952). A review of other conspiracy indictments challenged for overbreadth or vagueness shows, however, that those indictments contained more specific allegations than the general indictment here. See, e.g., State v. Sweat, 276 S.C. 448, 279 S.E.2d 375 (1981); State v. Fleming, 243 S.C. 265, 133 S.E.2d 800 (1963); State v. McIntire, supra ; and State v. Hightower, 221 S.C. 91, 69 S.E.2d 363 (1952). It is questionable whether this indictment on its face sufficiently apprised the appellants of the charges against them. It is well settled, however, that in viewing the sufficiency of an indictment we must look at the issue with a practical eye in view of the surrounding circumstances. State v. Adams, 277 S.C. 115, 283 S.E.2d 582 (1981). This indictment was returned by the State Grand Jury. Under its specialized procedure, a defendant is permitted to review, and to reproduce, the transcript of the testimony of the witnesses who appeared before the Grand Jury. S.C.Code Ann. § 14-7-1700 (Supp.1992). In light of the availability of this evidence to these appellants, we hold that this count of the indictment is not fatally vague or overbroad.