Opinion ID: 1303639
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: prior cocaine sales

Text: Pearl McCullough, the passenger in Victim's vehicle, testified that she and Victim had driven around in his car between approximately 6:30-7:00 pm on the night of the crime smoking marijuana. They then went and parked at her friend's house to smoke two rocks of crack cocaine. As they sat parked at her friend's house, Williams drove up in his gray four-wheel drive truck. McCullough recognized Williams and asked him if he had any crack cocaine. He told McCullough he would get her some after going to his girlfriend's house and would meet her later that evening. At this point, the solicitor asked McCullough: Q Had you had any discussions with the defendant in regards to crack cocaine before? A Not that day. Q How about before then? A Yeah, before then, but not that day. Williams' objection to the question was overruled. McCullough then testified, without objection, that after she and Victim smoked another rock of crack, they decided to find Williams at his girlfriend's house. They found him there and he sold McCullough four rocks of crack for $80.00. She and Victim left and smoked the four rocks. At approximately 10:00 pm, Victim decided he wanted to get two more rocks. They headed back toward Williams' girlfriend's house. En route, Victim recognized Williams' truck coming toward them on Beaver Dam Road. They blinked their lights and Williams stopped. Victim walked to the truck and came back with two rocks of crack. According to McCullough, Victim told her he didn't want the rocks and took them back to the truck. Victim and McCullough left and Williams drove off in the opposite direction. McCullough then saw a truck coming behind them flashing its lights. She told Victim it looked like the same truck and Victim didn't stop. She recognized Williams as he pulled up beside them and fired a gun into the vehicle, hitting Victim. Williams contends McCullough's reference to his prior bad acts was impermissible. We disagree. At trial, Williams objected only to McCullough's statement that she had had discussions with him about crack cocaine on days prior to the day of the shooting. There was no objection to her testimony that she bought cocaine from him on that day. Accordingly, insofar as he now complains about this testimony, this issue is unpreserved. State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 440 S.E.2d 869 (1994) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve issues for review). In any event, we find the evidence was so intimately connected with the shooting as to be admissible as part of the res gestae. The rationale underlying the res gestae theory is that evidence of other criminal conduct that occurs contemporaneously with or is part and parcel of the crime charged is considered part of the res gestae of that offense. Under res gestae, evidence of other crimes is admissible where it is intimately connected with the pending offense, or is necessary to provide a complete story or explanation of the pending offense. State v. Johnson, 306 S.C. 119, 410 S.E.2d 547 (1991) cert. denied, 503 U.S. 993, 112 S.Ct. 1691, 118 L.Ed.2d 404 (1992); State v. Bolden, 303 S.C. 41, 398 S.E.2d 494 (1990); State v. Jones, 273 S.C. 723, 259 S.E.2d 120 (1979). See also State v. Smith, 309 S.C. 442, 424 S.E.2d 496 (1992) (Toal, J., dissenting). As the Court of Appeals recently noted in State v. Hough, ___ S.C. ___, 459 S.E.2d 863 (1995) where the uncharged offense is so linked together in point of time and circumstances with the crime charged that one cannot be fully shown without proving the other, admissibility of evidence of the other crime is appropriate in order to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context or the `res gestae'. ( Citing United States v. Masters, 622 F.2d 83, 86 (4th Cir.1980). Here, evidence of the earlier sale was necessary to establish why Victim and McCullough were on their way to find Williams, and why they recognized his truck approaching them. [1] Moreover, evidence of the cocaine transaction which occurred on Beaver Dam Road immediately prior to the shooting was necessary to explain what Victim and McCullough were doing on an isolated road in Laurens at 10:00 pm and why they attempted to stop Williams' vehicle. Without this evidence, the State would have been precluded from explaining the circumstances of the crime. [2] As such, the testimony concerning the crack transactions on the night of the crime was so clearly linked to the shooting as to be admissible as part of the res gestae. We agree with Williams, however, that McCullough's testimony concerning drug sales prior to the day of the crime should not have been admitted. However, this testimony was cumulative to the other, properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless. State v. Wyatt, ___ S.C. ___, 453 S.E.2d 890 (1994) (error in admission of evidence is harmless where it is cumulative to other evidence which was properly admitted).