Carlton v. State

Decision Date01 March 1977
Docket Number4 Div. 503
CitationCarlton v. State, 342 So.2d 1382 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)
PartiesTommy CARLTON v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Randy C. Brackin, Dothan, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and C. Lawson Little, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARRIS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of selling marijuana and the Court sentenced him to imprisonment in the penitentiary for nine years.He was represented at arriagnment and trial by retained counsel.He pleaded not guilty.After sentence was imposed, he gave notice of appeal and his sentence was suspended pending appeal.His retained attorney represents him on this appeal.

Police Officer David R. Havard of the Mobile Police Department was assigned to work with the Dothan Police Department as an undercover agent in the narcotics division.Havard arrived in Dothan on March 28, 1976, and worked until June 4, 1976.During this period of time he made around 20 cases for drug violations.He was still on the payroll of the Mobile Police Department and received no extra compensation for his undercover work in Dothan.The City of Dothan furnished him money to make drug purchases.

Havard further testified that he met appellant on several occasions prior to May 21, 1976, and on that date Havard was driving north on Highway 231 when appellant, who was a passenger in another automobile, recognized him and flagged him down and stated he wanted to talk to him.Havard pulled into a parking lot of a local bank and the vehicle in which appellant was riding pulled over near the officer's car.Appellant got out of the car and produced a cellophane package containing a black, tarry substance, which he represented to be opium and asked the officer if he wanted any of it.The officer told appellanthe wanted some of it and bought a small piece for five dollars.Appellant then told the officer that he had some real good marijuana at his house and the officer told appellanthe wanted to buy some and asked if he could drive him to his house.Havard further stated that he and appellant were accompanied by one Hatfield Wilder to appellant's home at 308 Oglethorpe Street.

Havard further testified that when they reached the house appellant got out of the car and went in the house telling him to wait in the car.Appellant returned shortly with a large black cellophane bag of green plant material and asked the officer how much he wanted.The officer asked how much he wanted for the bag and appellant stated that he did not want to sell the whole bag but would sell him enough for two joints.The officer took some of the green vegetable material and put it in a matchbox and paid appellant four dollars.The officer said that he had seen marijuana many times and that in his best judgment the substance was marijuana.The officer then stated they took the original cellophane bag and left appellant's residence to go to Hatfield Wilder's house where appellant and Wilder tried to burn the substance represented to be opium.They put the substance on the tip of a knife and struck a match and tried to burn it, but were unable to get it to burn.Appellant and Wilder rolled two cigarettes of marijuana and passed them around to be smoked.The officer testified that appellant and Wilder smoked the marijuana but he only simulated smoking the cigarettes when they were passed to him so that they would think that he, too, was smoking along with them.

Officer Havard further testified that he took the substance back to his house, locked it in his brief case, and the following morning he gave it to Officer Bob Sorrells of the Dothan Police Department.He said it was in the same condition when he turned it over to Sorrells as it was when appellant sold it to him.

On cross-examination Havard was reminded that at the preliminary hearing he had testified differently as to the time and place where he purchased the marijuana and readily admitted the discrepancies as to times and places but not as to the actual purchase of marijuana from appellant.

Ms. Melinda Long, Toxicologist employed by the State of Alabama, testified that her main job with the Department of Toxicology was to analyze drugs.She stated that she received a sealed package from Sergeant Robert Jackson of the Dothan Police Department and that she analyzed the substance and found it to be marijuana.She stated that the substance she determined to be marijuana was in a matchbox.

Officer Robert Sorrells of the Dothan Police Department testified that he was assigned to the narcotics division and knew Officer David Havard of the Mobile Police Department.He stated that he received a telephone call from Officer Havard on May 23, 1976, and went to the place where he was staying where he was given a matchbox containing green vegetable material.He said he ran a Valtox test on the substance and the reaction was positive.He stated that he locked the matchbox in a locker in the narcotics office after sealing it and putting the name of the seller, the number and his initials on the container.He further testified that he gave the package to Officer Robert Jackson to personally...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
11 cases
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 7, 1980
    ...Ala., 347 So.2d 551 (1977); Nesbitt v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 343 So.2d 1240, cert. denied, Ala., 343 So.2d 1243 (1977); Carlton v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 342 So.2d 1382 (1977); Grace v. State, 57 Ala.App. 586, 329 So.2d 643 (1976); and cases cited We have carefully examined the record and find s......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 22, 1979
    ...314 So.2d 857 (1975). "An expert witness is one who can enlighten a jury more than the average man in the street." Carlton v. State, 342 So.2d 1382, 1385 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). "Experts may be qualified by experience rather than study or by study rather than experience." Kitchens v. State, 31 A......
  • Donley v. City of Mountain Brook
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 18, 1982
    ...342 So.2d 947 (Ala.1977). An expert witness is one who can enlighten a jury more than the average man in the street. Carlton v. State, 342 So.2d 1382 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). Also see C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 127.01(5) (3rd Ed.1977)." 409 So.2d We find no abuse of discretion in the......
  • Sanders v. City of Birmingham
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 30, 1988
    ...342 So.2d 947 (Ala.1977). An expert witness is one who can enlighten a jury more than the average man in the street. Carlton v. State, 342 So.2d 1382 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). Also see C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 127.01(5) (3d ed. Gullatt v. State, 409 So.2d 466, 472 (Ala.Cr.App.1981) ......
  • Get Started for Free