Boyd v. State, 590
| Decision Date | 25 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 590,590 |
| Citation | 15 Md.App. 275,289 A.2d 834 |
| Parties | Raymond Eugene BOYD v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Curtis Jay Karpel, Bowie, Md., for appellant.
Harry A. E. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Raymond G. Thieme, Jr., State's Atty., and Frank R. Weathersbee, Asst. State's Atty., for Anne Arundel County on the brief, for appellee.
Argued before MORTON, ORTH and POWERS, JJ.
ORTH Judge.
By ch. 403, Acts 1970, effective 1 July 1970, the General Assembly repealed various laws pertaining and relating to narcotic drugs and enacted a new law codified as Art. 27, §§ 276-302 in lieu thereof under the subheading 'Health-Controlled Dangerous Substances.' It set out its findings and declarations and stated the purpose of the new law 'The General Assembly finds and declares that many of the substances included with this subheading have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the people of the State of Maryland.
The General Assembly, however, finds and declares that the illegal manufacture, distribution, possession, and administration of controlled dangerous substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the people of the State of Maryland. It is the purpose of this subheading to establish a uniform law controlling the manufacture, distribution, possession, and administration of controlled dangerous substances and related paraphernalia in order to insure their availability for legitimate medical and scientific purposes, but to prevent their abuse which results in a serious health problem to the individual and represents a serious danger to the welfare of the people of the State of Maryland.' Section 276(a).
It then clearly enunicated how the provisions of the new law were to be interpreted and construed:
'The provisions of this subheading shall be liberally interpreted and construed so as to effectuate its general purpose as stated hereinabove.' Section 276(b).
Section 287 makes it a misdemeanor, subsection (e), for any person unlawfully 'to possess or distribute controlled paraphernalia,' subsection (d). 'Controlled paraphernalia' shall mean 'a hypodermic syringe, needle or other instrument or implement or conbination thereof adapted for the administration of controlled dangerous substances by hypodermic injections under circumstances which reasonably indicate an intention to use such controlled paraphernalia for purposes of illegally administering any controlled dangerous substance,' subsection (d)(i). 1 Section 298 (a) deals with the burden of proof:
An indictment was returned against Raymond Eugene Boyd presenting that on 10 June 1971 he unlawfully possessed controlled paraphernalia as proscribed by Art. 27, § 287(d) and he was convicted of the charge at a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The sole question he presents on appeal concerns the sufficiency of the evidence.
On 10 June 1971 Boyd was incarcerated in the Maryland House of Correction serving an 18 month sentence for non-support to which had been added a 9 month sentence for escape. He was working in the laundry in the industrial compound, which is inside the fence but outside the main building, and it was prison routine to search under a spot check procedure the inmates working in the laundry upon their return to the main building. Lt. Thad Oppert, the assistant commander of the industrial compound testified: '(W)e give them a body search, check their laundry bags and any other articles they may have on them.' He explained that the inmate would have a bag containing his laundry 'plus (at times) his customer's (bag) he's doing laundry for.' On the day in question Boyd was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doswell v. State
...of administering habit-forming drugs' was clearly erroneous. In the circumstances this was a rational inference." In Boyd v. State, 15 Md.App. 275, 289 A.2d 834 (1972), we sustained a conviction under the new law (§ 287(d)(i)) based on evidence that the defendant was found in possession of ......