Boring v. State, No. 50813
| Decision Date | 20 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 50813 |
| Citation | 365 So.2d 960 |
| Parties | Thomas C. BORING, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Moore, Epps & Selph, Deborah Selph, Julie Ann Epps, Jackson, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before ROBERTSON, P. J., WALKER and BROOM, JJ., and GRIFFIN, Commissioner.
J. RUBLE GRIFFIN, Commissioner for the Court: 1
The appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court of Leflore County for manufacture of marijuana under an indictment, the stating part of which reads as follows: "wilfully and feloniously manufacture a controlled substance by propagating or growing 23 plants of cannabis, commonly called marijuana."
The court gave, at the State's request, the following instruction:
The Court instructs the jury that if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas C. Boring, Jr. did on or about the 17th day of June, 1977 in Leflore County, Mississippi, unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously manufacture a controlled substance by growing same or by growing 23 plants of cannabis, which is commonly called marijuana, then it is your sworn duty to find the defendant, Thomas C. Boring, Jr., guilty as charged.
The appellant requested instructions that would have required proof that the manufacture was effected, either directly or indirectly, in one of three ways: by extraction, by chemical synthesis, or by a combination of these two methods, contending that by virtue of Mississippi Code Annotated, Section (q) "Manufacture" means the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly, by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and includes any packaging or repackaging of the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container. The term "manufacture" does not include the preparation or compounding of a controlled substance by an individual for his own use or the preparation, compounding, packaging or labeling of a controlled substance: * * *
41-29-105(q) (Supp.1977), one of the above must be proved as an element of the offense charged. The code section reads as follows:
It is contended by the appellant that the comma following the word "indirectly" should have been omitted and the word "or" inserted. Admittedly the parenthetically setting out of "either directly or indirectly" confuses the reader and does make it appear that the manufacture must be either by extraction, chemical synthesis or a combination thereof. However, Section 41-29-105, supra, is the definitive section of that chapter of the Mississippi Code on controlled substances, and sub-section (z) defining production reads as follows: " 'Production' includes the manufacture, planting, cultivation, growing or harvesting of a controlled substance." In order to give proper meaning as obviously intended by the Legislature, sub-sections (q) and (z) must be read and construed together. Aikerson v. State, 274 So.2d 124 (Miss.1973). Manufacturing embraces production and production embraces manufacturing and planting, cultivation, growing or harvesting. Construing the two sub-sections together, it becomes apparent that the Legislature prohibited the growing of marijuana; therefore, the State's instruction was proper and the requested instructions by the appellant were properly refused inasmuch as ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dunlap
...of production, it is apparent that the growing of plant matter containing a controlled substance is prohibited. (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.......
-
State v. Underwood, 14323
...to include planting, cultivating and growing, a point we recently made in State v. White, W.Va., 280 S.E.2d 114 (1981). In Boring v. State, 365 So.2d 960 (Miss.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 916, 99 S.Ct. 2835, 61 L.Ed.2d 283 (1979), the court reached a similar conclusion that manufacturing ......
-
State Farm Ins. Co. v. Gay
...give effect to all of its provisions. Pearl River Valley Water Supply District v. Hinds County, 445 So.2d 1330 (Miss.1984); Boring v. State, 365 So.2d 960 (1979); Broadhead v. Monaghan, 238 Miss. 239, 117 So.2d 881, (1960), citing 82 C.J.S., Statutes Sec. 345; Kellum v. Johnson, 237 Miss. 5......
-
State v. Padgett, Cr. N
...was rejected by courts interpreting identical statutory definitions in State v. Poulson, 234 N.W.2d 214 (Neb.1975) and Boring v. State, 365 So.2d 960 (Miss.1978), cert. denied., 442 U.S. 916, 99 S.Ct. 2835, 61 L.Ed.2d 283 Padgett's interpretation that the definition of "manufacture" require......