Judge rejected argument that ‘knowingly’ applies to drug type
By Phillip Bantz
BridgeTower Media Newswires
COLUMBIA, SC — Prosecutors in South Carolina need not prove that a defendant knew what type of drugs he was transporting to shore up a conviction for trafficking, the state Court of Appeals has ruled in a novel decision.
Whether a defendant must have “knowledge of the precise identity of the illegal drug being trafficked, has, surprisingly, never been addressed by our appellate courts,” Judge Gary Hill wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel in State v. Lance Miles.
Hill, a former circuit judge who was elected to the appellate bench earlier this year, rejected Miles’ argument that the term “knowingly” in the state’s trafficking law extends beyond possession and applies to the specific type of drug being trafficked.
He opined that Miles’ myopic reading of the statute could “lead to strange results,” saying that the prosecution would have to prove not only that a trafficking defendant knew he was carrying a certain drug but also that he knew the chemical composition of that drug.
“We doubt the Legislature, in passing the drug trafficking laws, meant to create a scenario where a defendant is culpable only if armed with a proficiency in chemistry on par with a pharmacist or Walter White,” he wrote.
Aside from the pop culture reference to White, the fictional high school chemistry teacher-turned meth-making drug kingpin in the TV drama “Breaking Bad,” Hill also slipped a joke about grammarians into the opinion.
In a footnote for a citation to a 4th Circuit decision declaring that reading adverbs to “modify the infinite hereafters of statutory sentences would cause grammarians to recoil,” Hill quipped: “We suspect the bar for causing grammarians to recoil is low.”
Miles’ appellate defender, John Strom of Columbia, said he appreciated Hill’s writing style, but contended that the White reference proved his point, as it “illustrates how the trafficking statute is actually supposed to work under our interpretation of it, in that Walter White knew he was making meth in large quantities.”
In Strom’s view, the trafficking statute should not apply to drug runners like Miles, who was arrested after retrieving a Federal Express package from the front door of an apartment. He allegedly admitted that he had been paid to collect the box and knew drugs were inside, but apparently was unaware of the exact contents: 300 pills of oxycodone.
“A blind drug mule, so to speak, is perhaps more in the possession-with-intent-to-distribute category than being a true drug trafficker,” Strom said.
He added, “I think the state’s argument that it [his interpretation of the trafficking law] would render trafficking prosecutions impossible is just not accurate in light of what we see in other states.”
Strom noted that North Carolina, for instance, requires prosecutors to show that a defendant knew what type of drugs he was trafficking. But with the decision in Miles’ case, South Carolina has joined at least seven other states where traffickers can be convicted if they claim ignorance — as long as prosecutors can show that the accused knew they were carrying drugs of some type and the quantity was great enough to trigger the trafficking statute.
Interview requests with the state Attorney General’s office and 11th Circuit Solicitor Samuel Hubbard of Lexington, whose office prosecuted Miles at trial, went unanswered.
Miles, meanwhile, was poised to ask the Court of Appeals to rehear the case, Strom said. If he is turned away, Strom said Miles would likely take his argument to the state Supreme Court.
“It’s a novel and interesting argument,” said Columbia criminal defense lawyer Dick Harpootlian, who reviewed the decision at Lawyers Weekly’s request. “I don’t think our Supreme Court’s going to buy it, but they might under the theory that ignorance is bliss.”
At trial, Miles’ attorney made a tactical decision to let the state introduce Miles’ admission to police that he had been paid to retrieve the package and knew that drugs were inside — even though he made the statements before hearing his Miranda rights.
The strategy allowed Miles to argue his ignorance theory, which has backfired so far. Because he had at least two prior drug convictions, Miles’ trafficking conviction resulted in a minimum mandatory sentence of 25 years and a $100,000 fine.
“He made a mistake by admitting [that he was picking up drugs] and then a tactical mistake at trial by admitting those statements in,” Harpootlian said. “If Walter White is breaking bad, then Lance Miles is breaking sad.”
The 10-page decision is State v. Miles.
