Legal Opinion

State v. Hayward

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided July 2, 1990No. 23235PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Toal, Justice:

The sole issue of import in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to compel the disclosure of the names of two informants. We find no error and therefore affirm.

FACTS

The appellant, Michael Hayward, was charged and convicted of selling a piece of crack cocaine to Rodney Roberts, an *76undercover agent employed by SLED. Roberts, apparently not a police officer, was supervised by SLED agent Keith Stokes. Stokes sent Roberts and two females to “Blow’s Place” to conduct an undercover “sting” operation.

Upon their arrival at Blow’s Place, the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. BlackburnSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
  2. State v. DiamondSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1984
  3. State v. BernotasSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1981
  4. State v. WinestockSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
  5. State v. BurneySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. BultronCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API