State v. Gamble
405 S.C. 409
S.C.2013Background
- Gamble was indicted for attempt to distribute heroin and trafficking; the State tried only the trafficking count after the confidential informant (CI) died.
- At trial an officer testified he received information about a dealer, developed a tactical plan, contacted Gamble at 72 Offshore Drive, arrested him on a separate charge, and searched him and his car, recovering substances that field‑tested positive for heroin.
- Defense objected to the hearsay origin of the investigation and later objected that the State failed to lay a foundation showing the search and seizure were legally justified (probable cause/exception to warrant requirement).
- The trial court admitted the drugs and instructed the jury that out‑of‑court statements were offered only to explain police conduct, not for their truth.
- Jury convicted Gamble of trafficking; trial court denied judgment notwithstanding the verdict/new trial and sentenced him to 25 years. The court of appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gamble) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether narcotics evidence was properly admitted when prosecution did not establish probable cause/exception to warrant requirement | Admission improper because the State failed to show the search/seizure were supported by probable cause or fit a recognized warrant exception; trial record lacked facts supporting lawful arrest or search incident to arrest | Officer testimony that arrest and search occurred was sufficient; any deficiency was Gamble's failure to request a suppression hearing | Reversed: admission was error — State did not establish probable cause or an applicable exception; exclusion required under the Fourth Amendment |
| 2) Whether the trial court erred in denying a new trial/JNOV based on lack of foundation for the seizure | A new trial or JNOV was required because the only drug evidence came from an unexplained, likely unconstitutional search | State argued Gamble waived or invited error by declining offered out‑of‑presence hearing and not developing record on probable cause; any admission was cumulative and harmless | Majority: denial of new trial was incorrect because admission of tainted evidence was not justified; dissent argued Gamble prevented the record and forfeited review |
Key Cases Cited
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (stop and frisk / limits on investigative stops)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (officer’s subjective motive does not invalidate objectively justified arrest)
- State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125 (search incident to arrest justified where officer’s testimony supported need to disarm/preserve evidence)
- State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62 (Fourth Amendment governs suppression of unlawfully seized evidence)