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. 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. Cf. German v. State, 325 S.C. 25, 27-28, 478 S.E.2d 687, 688-89 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Because this testimony did not constitute
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 holding that a statement implying that the defendant was guilty of the crime for which he was on trial was inadmissible hearsay holding that police officers testimony indicating he developed the defendant as a suspect after speaking with a nontestifying witness implied that the witness made accusatory statements against defendant and therefore was inadmissible hearsay holding that the defendant was entitled to a new trial where the only witnesses to a drug transaction other than the defendant were an fbi agent and a cl holding that newspaper articles were inadmissible hearsay when used to prove that the defendant made the statements attributed to him in the article