context: Second, this testimony was in response to the questions asked on cross-examination as to why Lieutenant Weston did not perform a gunshot residue test on everyone at the crime scene. Lieutenant Weston's testimony was offered to explain this part of his investigation.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 451 S.E.2d 888, 893-94
citation_a.parenthetical: finding officers' statements explaining why they began their surveillance of defendant's apartment were not hearsay
citation_a.sentence: See State v. Brown, 317 S.C. 55, 63, 451 S.E.2d 888, 893-94 (1994) (finding officers’ statements explaining why they began their surveillance of defendant’s apartment were not hearsay); State v. Thompson, 352 S.C. 552, 558, 575 S.E.2d 77, 81 (Ct.App.2003) (“ ‘[A]n out of court statement is not hearsay if it is offered for the limited purpose of explaining why a government investigation was undertaken.’ ” (quoting Brown, 317 S.C. at 63, 451 S.E.2d at 894)). Furthermore, Lieutenant Weston did not testify to any specific statements that identified Weaver.
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 325 S.C. 25, 27-28
citation_b.parenthetical: holding testimony of undercover drug agent regarding tips that defendant was selling drugs and description of defendant were inadmissible hearsay given the statements specifically referred to defendant
citation_b.sentence: Cf. German v. State, 325 S.C. 25, 27-28, 478 S.E.2d 687, 688-89 (1996) (holding testimony of undercover drug agent regarding tips that defendant was selling drugs and description of defendant were inadmissible hearsay given the statements specifically referred to defendant). Because this testimony did not constitute hearsay, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it.