Court Opinion

ID: 9561315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:06:55.904891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:43.092362
License: Public Domain

Goolsby, Judge
(concurring and dissenting):
Like the majority, I would reverse the firearm and conspiracy convictions, but I would do so only on the ground that the trial court erred in denying Mouzon the right to make the final argument to the jury. I do not agree the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict against the State on the charge of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. For that reason, I would remand both charges for retrial.
In reviewing the trial court’s refusal to grant a directed verdict of acquittal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether there is any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused or from which guilt may be fairly and logically deduced. State v. Breech, 308 S.C. 356, 417 S.E. (2d) 873 (1992).
The crime of conspiracy is defined by S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-410 (Supp. 1994) as “a combination between two or more persons for the purpose of accomplishing a criminal or unlawful object or an object neither criminal nor unlawful by a criminal or unlawful means.” In order to establish a conspiracy, the State need not show a formal or express agreement, and direct evidence is not essential. State v. Lagerquist, 256 S.C. 69 *37180 S.E. (2d) 882 (1971). A conspiracy may be established by a tacit, mutual understanding that results in the intentional adoption of a common design by two. or more persons to do unlawful acts. Id. Proof of an overt act is not required because conspiracy may be shown by circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the individuals involved. Id.
Here, Willie Carl Jones testified that in “the Jungle,” where Jones sold drugs, if a purchaser of drugs failed to pay, the drug dealers threw bottles and other objects at his car to break the windows so that the “purchaser” would have to pay for new windows. In fact, Jones testified that was exactly what happened in this case.
Jones testified Mouzon was in the Jungle selling drugs that night. Mouzon, upon hearing the purchaser was trying to run away with the drugs, ran behind a nearby house where Mouzon kept his gun and returned to the field.
When the purchaser drove down the street, attempting to run away with the drugs, Jones was about 10 feet behind Mouzon. When the purchaser drove past him, Jones took his eyes off Mouzon to throw a bottle at the car. He then heard a gunshot from right in front of him. He looked toward Mouzon and saw him coming back down with a revolver in his hand after having pointed it straight out at the car. Jones then heard a second shot from the same area in which he and Mouzon were standing. Mouzon was the only person he saw in that area.
It is patently clear that the evidence reasonably tended to prove the following facts: 1) These drug dealers had a mutual understanding that they would enforce payment for one another; 2) Mouzon was selling drugs that night in “the Jungle,” with the understanding that the other drug dealers would assist him in enforcing payment for his drug deals; and 3) Mouzon understood he would enforce payment on drug deals in which he was not the seller. In fact, the evidence reasonably tended to show Mouzon assisted in enforcing payment of a drug deal that night by shooting at a purchaser attempting to drive away without paying.
The majority opinion concludes the drug dealers’ competition with one another to obtain individual sales suggests they were not acting together for their shared mutual benefit. This analysis misses the point that the illegal tacit agreement here *38was to enforce payment of the purchases. Under the majority’s analysis, competing stores in a shopping center would not gain a shared mutual benefit by chipping in to hire a security guard. I believe the evidence reasonably tended to show the individual dealers gained a shared mutual benefit from ensuring whoever made the drug deal would get paid for it.
I would reverse and remand both charges for retrial.