733 S.E.2d 611
S.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Cheeks was convicted of trafficking crack cocaine and possession with intent to distribute within 1/2 mile of a school; concurrent 25-year terms on trafficking counts and 10 years on possession.
- Evidence came from a traffic stop linked to a Markley residence where crack was cooked and packaged, and from Markley’s residence where large quantities of crack and drug-making paraphernalia were found.
- A K-9 sniff at the traffic stop alerted, leading to discovery of crack in the car between the trunk and passenger door area where Ricky had been escorted.
- Officers later obtained a search warrant and found 662.42 grams of crack cocaine at Markley’s residence, plus related items (boiling water, scales, blades, Inositol).
- Cheeks challenged the search warrant as facially invalid for lacking a premises description, and challenged the jury instruction asserting that actual knowledge is strong evidence of intent.
- The trial court denied suppression, and the jury was instructed with a ‘strong evidence’ concept regarding knowledge of presence and possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the home drugs should be suppressed due to an invalid warrant. | Cheeks contends the warrant lacked a premises description, rendering it facially invalid. | Cheeks relies on Groh that a warrant must describe the place; argues cross-reference to affidavit is insufficient. | Warrant was valid because it incorporated the attached affidavit describing the premises. |
| Whether the jury instruction on actual knowledge as strong evidence appropriate or improper. | Cheeks argues the charge comments on the weight of the evidence and negates mere presence. | Cheeks relies on Kimbrell and Solomon that actual knowledge can be strong evidence of intent to control. | The instruction, read as a whole, correctly stated law and did not negate mere presence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2004) (requires particularity; cross-reference allowed with proper incorporation)
- Hurwitz v. United States, 459 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2006) (either incorporation or attachment suffices for particularity)
- State v. Williams, 297 S.C. 404 (S.C. 1989) (warrant read with affidavit to satisfy particularity)
- State v. Thompson, 363 S.C. 192 (Ct.App. 2005) (describes why particularity matters to warrant scope)
- Kimbrell, 294 S.C. 51 (S.C. 1987) (actual knowledge can be strong evidence of intent to control)
- Solomon, 313 S.C. 526 (S.C. 1994) (affirms strong-evidence charge following Kimbrell)
- Goldsmith v. Witkowski, 981 F.2d 697 (4th Cir. 1992) (mere presence plus knowledge may be insufficient without dominion)
- State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469 (S.C. 2010) (jury charge evaluated as correct if read as a whole)
- State v. Gentile, 373 S.C. 506 (Ct.App. 2007) (recognizes standard for suppression and warrants in SC)
- State v. Fripp, 396 S.C. 434 (Ct.App. 2012) (law-of-the-case principle on appellate review)
- Wright, 391 S.C. 436 (S.C. 2011) (appellate review of suppression rulings)