THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Claude and Phil Humphries,        Appellants.

Appeal From Sumter County
Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge

Opinion No. 3380
Heard February 7, 2001 - Filed August 6, 2001

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of SC Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for appellant.

Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh and Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown; and Solicitor C. Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for respondent.

CURETON, J.: In this criminal case, Claude and Phil Humphries appeal from their convictions for trafficking marijuana on the grounds that the trial court erred in refusing to compel the State to disclose the identity of its confidential informant and in admitting evidence of other bad acts. We affirm. (1)

FACTS/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In October of 1996, the Sumter County Sheriff's Department received a tip that a package containing illegal drugs would be delivered to C&J Automotive from an address in California. Deputies of the sheriff's department intercepted the package while it was en route with the United Parcel Service (UPS). The package, addressed to C&J Automotive, contained approximately 40 pounds of marijuana with a street value of approximately $60,000. Police repackaged the drugs and made a controlled delivery using a South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) agent disguised as a UPS driver. Phil accepted the package, and stated he was signing for the garage's owner, Claude. Officers then executed a search warrant and seized the package, files, ledgers, and $4,500 in U.S. currency. Both Phil and Claude were present during the search.

The Sumter County Grand Jury indicted the Humphries on charges of criminal conspiracy and trafficking in more than ten, but less than one hundred pounds of marijuana. During their trial on the trafficking charges, the Humphries moved to have the State reveal the identity of the confidential informant. After argument from both sides, the trial court refused to grant the motion, reasoning it did not have