Bedell v. State, CR76--77
| Decision Date | 20 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. CR76--77,CR76--77 |
| Citation | 541 S.W.2d 297,260 Ark. 401 |
| Parties | Hoyle Bruce BEDELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Simpson & Riffel by J. Kirby Riffel, Pocahontas, for appellant.
Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen. by Jackson Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
This is the second appeal in a prosecution for the offense of manufacturing marihuana. The salient facts were stated in the first opinion and need not be repeated. Bedell v. State, 257 Ark. 895, 521 S.W.2d 200 (1975). Upon a second trial Bedell was again convicted and was sentenced to a five-year term and a $2,500 fine. Several points for reversal are argued.
The appellant is mistaken in his argument that the manufacture of a controlled substance for one's own use is not an offense. The personal-use exemption applies only to the preparation or compounding of such a substance. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 82--2601(m) (Supp.1975). Manufacture, however, includes production, which in turn includes planting, cultivating, and growing the substance. § 82--2601(u). There is abundant proof that Bedell was growing marihuana on his farm. In fact, he so admitted on the witness stand.
There was no prejudicial error in the procedure by which the State introduced the marihuana plants into evidence. The State's expert witness, Manuel Holcomb, a chemist, identified the exhibits as marihuana. His qualifications as a chemist are not questioned. He testified that a chemical analysis is essential in the identification of marihuana. That testimony rebuts the appellant's argument, made without proof, that only a botanist should be permitted to identify the plant. We do not find Holcomb's analysis to have been deficient. He tested at least one of the plants that were taken from the field and visually checked other plants in the same bag. He also tested other specimens of marihuana that were discovered in Bedell's home. There was no defect in the important chain of custody; that is, from the officers' seizure of the plants in the fields to their delivery of the plants to Holcomb. It is true that the exhibits were not kept constantly under lock and key after their use as evidence at the first trial, but that was merely a circumstance to be considered by the jury in weighing the testimony. Rogers v. State, 258 Ark. 314, 524 S.W.2d 227 (1975).
Our ruling upon the first appeal, that the prohibition against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gardner v. State
...kept under lock and key was merely a circumstance going to the weight to be given the evidence, not its admissibility. Bedell v. State, 260 Ark. 401, 541 S.W.2d 297, cert. den. 430 U.S. 931, 97 S.Ct. 1552, 51 L.Ed.2d 775. We do not say that the chain of custody of the tapes is insignificant......
-
Landers v. Jameson
...aware that this court has said that the law-of-the-case doctrine extends to issues of constitutional law. See, e.g., Bedell v. State, 260 Ark. 401, 541 S.W.2d 297 (1976); Feldman v. State Board of Law Examiners, 256 Ark. 384, 507 S.W.2d 508 (1974); Miller Lumber Company v. Floyd, 169 Ark. 4......
-
Landers v. Jameson, No. 03-114 (Ark. 5/4/2003)
...aware that this court has said that the law-of-the-case doctrine extends to issues of constitutional law. See, e.g., Bedell v. State, 260 Ark. 401, 541 S.W.2d 297 (1976); Feldman v. State Board of Law Examiners, 256 Ark. 384, 507 S.W.2d 508 (1974); Miller Lumber Company v. Floyd, 169 Ark. 4......
-
People v. Dunlap
...(Boring v. State (Miss.1978), 365 So.2d 960, 961, cert. den. 442 U.S. 916, 99 S.Ct. 2835, 61 L.Ed.2d 283; See also Bedell v. State (1976), 260 Ark. 401, 541 S.W.2d 297, cert. den. 430 U.S. 931, 97 S.Ct. 1552, 51 L.Ed.2d 775). We believe that this construction of the Controlled Substances Ac......