State v. Hayward
Supreme Court of South Carolina
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
- State v. BlackburnSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
- State v. DiamondSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1984
- State v. BernotasSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1981
- State v. WinestockSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
- State v. BurneySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. BultronCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1995