Summary
finding issue unpreserved because it was not raised by the appellant
Summary of this case from State v. TaylorOpinion
20534
October 31, 1977.
Edmund H. Robinson, of Charleston, for Appellant, cites: As to the Trial Judge's refusal to allow either Defense Counsel to cross-examine Allen Whitehead fully as to his prior drug conviction and as to his status as an unindicted co-conspirator denying Appellant his right of confrontation: State v. Hill; Op. No. 20400, filed Ap. 13, 1977; 532 F.2d 1042; 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347; 409 U.S. 57, 93 S.Ct. 80, 34 L.Ed.2d 267.
Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., Brian P. Gibbes, and Sally G. Young, Asst. Attys. Gen., of Columbia, and Capers G. Barr, III, Sol., of Charleston, for Respondent, cite: As to a conviction for possession of stimulant drugs or on outstanding fine owed to the State as a result of said conviction not being a crime of moral turpitude on which witness may be cross-examined for the purpose of impeaching his credibility: 204 S.C. 374, 29 S.E.2d 488; 258 S.C. 369, 188 S.E.2d 850; 215 S.C. 166, 54 S.E.2d 559; 272 N.C. 130, 157 S.E.2d 660; 247 S.C. 52, 145 S.E.2d 423; Dreher, A Guide to Evidence Law in South Carolina p. 19; 231 S.C. 69, 97 S.E.2d 214; 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347.
October 31, 1977.
Appellant, Michael E. Carriker, and a co-defendant were convicted of armed robbery. Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-one (21) years.
Appellant charges that the trial judge erred in refusing to permit cross-examination of a key State's witness concerning a prior conviction of the witness for possession of stimulant drugs without a prescription and in refusing to permit inquiry into the fact that the witness was on probation and owed a fine to the State as a result of that prior conviction. The question raised by the first point is whether the mere possession of stimulant drugs without a prescription, specifically dexamyl and dexadrine, is an offense involving moral turpitude. We hold that it is not, and this holding is limited to the illegal possession of drugs which can be acquired legally with a valid prescription. The second point is not before this Court because appellant's counsel made no objection on this point at trial. While appellant's co-defendant did object, the appellant may not utilize the objection of another defendant to gain review. 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 251 (1957).
After a full consideration of appellant's remaining exceptions, we are of the opinion that no error of law appears and that the issues are governed by well settled principles of law. Accordingly, they are dismissed pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Court.
Affirmed.