Merritt v. State
Decision Date | 31 May 2002 |
Citation | 853 So.2d 1021 |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Parties | Tara Booker MERRITT v. STATE of Alabama. |
Paul M. Harden, Sr., Monroeville, for appellant.
William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Hense R. Ellis II, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Alabama Supreme Court 1012140.
AFFIRMED BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM.
I concur that the certificate of analysis was admissible and that its admission was not a violation of Tara Booker Merritt's right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment; however, I disagree with the rationale employed by the majority in its unpublished memorandum in reaching that result.
Ex parte Scroggins, 727 So.2d 131, 132 (Ala.1998).
Section 12-21-300, Ala.Code 1975, provides:
(Emphasis added.)
Section 12-21-301, Ala.Code 1975, provides:
Section 12-21-302(a), Ala.Code 1975, provides:
"The party against whom the certificate is offered may request, not later than 30 days prior to the commencement of the hearing or trial, a hearing to show cause why a subpoena should be issued for cross-examination of the person who performed the examination or analysis."
(Emphasis added.)
Thus, § 12-21-302(a), Ala.Code 1975, protects a defendant's right to confront and cross-examine the forensic expert attesting to the information contained in the certificate of analysis.
I must note that it is troubling to me that nothing in the record shows that the State provided Merritt with notice of its intent to introduce a certificate of analysis; however, this omission is negated because no objection was made to the State's failure. There must be an objection at trial to lack of notice in order to prevent the admission of the certificate of analysis into evidence. See Lee v. State, 748 So.2d 904, 910 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999)(trial court erred in overruling the defendant's objection to the admissibility of a certificate of analysis on grounds that the State had not complied with the statute). The only objection concerning the certificate of analysis presented at trial was to the alleged violation of the confrontation clause. The trial court correctly overruled this objection because the statute specifically provides a defendant a procedure to compel the presence of the forensic expert for cross-examination and this procedure implicitly creates a process to record adverse rulings for appellate purposes. The objection in this case, which was made for the first time during the trial, was first due to be denied because it was untimely and additionally due to be denied because a properly submitted certificate of analysis does not violate the confrontation clause.
I also disagree with the majority's reliance in its unpublished memorandum on Powell v. State, 804 So.2d 1167 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), for the proposition that forensic testimony is unnecessary in a prosecution for the unlawful possession of marijuana—where guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Although I concurred with the decision reached in Powell, I now realize I did so in error. I believe that Powell's reliance on Alabama caselaw, Headley v. State, 720 So.2d 996, 998 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), and Hanks v. State, 562 So.2d 536, 540 (Ala.Crim.App.), rev'd on other grounds, 562 So.2d 540 (Ala.1989), is misplaced.
Headley is an appeal from the circuit court's denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus after the Department of Corrections found Headley guilty of violating prison regulations. The evidentiary standard required to satisfy due process in a prison disciplinary hearing is "some evidence." Headley v. State, 720 So.2d at 997
. The Headley court opined that where an officer testified that based on his "expertise or the knowledge" plant material was marijuana, the "some evidence" standard was met.1 I agree.
Hanks was convicted of manslaughter. A police officer was allowed to testify that he smelled marijuana in Hanks's car; he saw two cigarettes in the floorboard; he saw a "roach" in the ashtray; and he saw some "green leafy substance" in a plastic baggie in a purse on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sci Alabama Funeral Services v. Hester
... ... 984 So.2d 1209 ... between the litigants.'" Dees v. State, 563 So.2d 1059, 1061 (Ala.Civ.App.1990)(quoting Tidwell v. Tidwell, 496 So.2d 91, 92 (Ala.Civ.App.1986)) ... In Williams ... ...
-
Crenshaw v. State
...in a prosecution for the possession of marijuana." For the following reasons, taken from my special writing in Merritt v. State, 853 So.2d 1021 (Ala.Crim.App.2002), I respectfully dissent from the majority's affirmance of Crenshaw's conviction for possession of marijuana in the second "I ........
- USA MOTOR EXP., INC. v. Renner