Alston v. State, 46660
| Decision Date | 07 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 46660,46660 |
| Parties | Joe ALSTON v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Ransom P. Jones III, Pascagoula, W. S. Moore, Jackson, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Timmie Hancock, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Joe Alston was convicted in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Mississippi, of the crime of selling marijuana. He received a penitentiary sentence of four years and appealed to this Court.
Alston contends that his conviction was a nullity because he was indicted under a statute which did not become effective until after the alleged crime occurred on April 2, 1971. The question is whether the indictment is valid.
On April 16, 1971, the Uniform Controlled Substances Act became effective. Miss.Laws 1971, Ch. 521 (§§ 6831-51 through 6831-88, Miss Code 1942 Ann. (Supp.1971)). The Act declares marijuana to be a controlled substance (§ 6831-57(c)(10), Miss. Code 1942 Ann. (Supp.1971)), the sale or delivery of which is illegal. § 6831-70, Miss. Code 1942 Ann. (Supp.1971).
The indictment charged:
That Joe Alston late of the County aforesaid, on the 2nd day of April in the year of our Lord 1971, in the County aforesaid, did unlawfully, wilfully, feloniously and knowingly sell the Schedule I Controlled Substance or Narcotic Drug without authority of law-to-wit: One ounce of marijuana, to one Terry Bullock, for the sum of $15.00, in violation of the Uniform Controlled Substance Act of 1971.
We hold that the indictment was valid for the following reasons: (1) It is not necessary to designate the statute under which an indictment is drawn, and if the crime is charged in words aptly charging the offense the indictment is sufficient. Pearson v. State, 248 Miss. 353, 158 So.2d 710 (1963). The sale of marijuana constituted a crime before the 1971 Act, and likewise constitutes a crime under the 1971 Act. The indictment aptly charged the crime of selling marijuana under the previous law, and reference to the 1971 Act at most was mere surplusage. Dendy v. State, 224 Miss. 208, 79 So.2d 827 (1955). (2) The 1971 Act, Code section 6831-83(a), provides that the penalty for violations prior to the effective date of the 1971 Act shall be prescribed in accordance with the 1971 Act. It follows that it was appropriate to refer to the 1971 Act in the indictment for if the sale of marijuana was not a violation under the new Act there would be no penalty to prescribe. (3) The 1971 Act does not increase the punishment for violations involving the sale of marijuana; it mollifies the rigor of the previous law. Therefore, it is not within the prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto laws. McGuire v. State, 76 Miss. 504, 25 So. 495 (1899).
The defendant requested several instructions submitting to the jury the question of entrapment. He assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to submit this issue to the jury.
The facts bearing on this issue are as follows: The state offered the testimony of Terry Bullock, an undercover investigator employed by the Pascagoula Police Department, to determine who was dealing in narcotics, including marijuana. Bullock adopted the dress and life style of a certain group in the Jackson County area who used drugs. He heard members of this group refer to a person named Joe. Bullock went with the group to Joe Alston's house, because one of the group said he knew where they could smoke some marijuana free. The defendant then took them to the kitchen and brought out some marijuana; some of the group began rolling marijuana cigarettes, which they then smoked. One of the group told Bullock that Joe Alston was dealing in marijuana. Bullock asked Joe Alston if he had any marijuana to sell and Alston said he was making purchases in Mobile and would bring some back. After several visits to Alston's house, Bullock bought an ounce of marijuana for $15.
Alston testified that Bullock came to his home and there were three other people there, and they all sat around the kitchen table and smoked marijuana. Alston said Bullock asked him where he got the marijuana, and Alston told him he got it in Mobile. Bullock asked Alston if he would 'get me some' and Alston said, 'no, I can't.' About a week later, Bullock came by Alston's house and asked for some marijauna. Alston said he did not know where he could get any right then, but he would check on it. Later, Bullock came by Alston's house and again asked for some marijuana, and Alston 'told him I didn't know at that time where I could get any.' The next week, Bullock repeated the request when they met at a service station, and Alston stated that he would try. Later that week, Bullock went to Alston's house and paid Alston $15 for 'a lid,' or one ounce, of marijuana. Alston testified that he charged him the same amount as he had paid for it. After the sale, Bullock contacted Alston...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sayre v. State, 57110
...fact in Averitt and French applied here where defendant was entreated by undercover agents to help find source of drugs); Alston v. State, 258 So.2d 436 (Miss.1972) (refusal to submit issue of entrapment to jury affirmed where defendant first sold marijuana at price he paid for it after bei......
-
Tanner v. State
...the prosecution. Ervin v. State, 431 So.2d 130, 133-34 (Miss.1983); Tribbett v. State, 394 So.2d 878, 881 (Miss.1981); Alston v. State, 258 So.2d 436, 438 (Miss.1972). Second, predisposition becomes a fact of consequence and evidence thereof becomes relevant and, hence, always admissible. R......
-
Jones v. State
...49, 149 So.2d 320 (1963); French v State, 149 Miss. 684, 115 So. 705 (1928). (248 So.2d at 438). (Emphasis supplied). In Alston v. State, 258 So.2d 436 (Miss.1972) defendant was convicted of the sale of marijuana and one of his assignments of error was that the lower court erred in refusing......
-
King v. State, 57942
...the prosecution. Ervin v. State, 431 So.2d 130, 133-34 (Miss.1983); Tribbett v. State, 394 So.2d 878, 881 (Miss.1981); Alston v. State, 258 So.2d 436, 438 (Miss.1972). Second, the accused becomes entitled to have the issue of entrapment submitted to the jury on proper instructions. The defe......