Morrison v. State, 6 Div. 95
| Decision Date | 22 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 95 |
| Citation | 455 So.2d 240 |
| Parties | Gary Wade MORRISON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Arthur Parker, Birmingham, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and P. David Bjurberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Gary Wade Morrison was convicted by a Jefferson County jury of violation of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act, § 20-2-1, et seq., Code of Alabama 1975, and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. In addition, a $25,000 fine was levied against him.
The state's evidence tended to show that the law enforcement officers, in obtaining the warrant for the search of Morrison's house, averred that they had been provided with information that there was marijuana in the appellant's house; that the information was provided by an informant who had proven to be reliable at least twice in the past. The warrant was carried out and 467 pounds of marijuana was seized from the appellant's house and his car. Law enforcement officers later took a "pinch" of green plant material from each of the bales of green plant material so that each might be tested to determine whether it was, in fact, marijuana. A total of 18.1 grams was thus obtained and the "pinch" from each bale was placed in a different small bag. The remainder of the marijuana was carried to the United States Steel mill and burned in the furnace under the observation of law enforcement officers. On appeal Morrison sets forth seven grounds, each of which he claims merits reversal of the case.
Appellant Morrison contends first that § 20-2-80, Acts of Alabama 1980 No. 80-587, is unconstitutional for the failure of the legislature to provide a maximum limit of punishment upon conviction. Our court addressed this precise issue in Dickerson v. State, 414 So.2d 998 (Ala.Crim.App.1982). Section 20-2-80(1) does not provide for a maximum sentence. The court, per Judge Tyson, noted that all sentences are restrained by Article 1, Sec. 15, of the 1901 Alabama Constitution limiting the infliction of excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment, and also noting the strictures of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court then held that § 20-2-80(1) is constitutional. We affirm that holding here.
Appellant next contends that the court erred in failing to dismiss the indictment because the deputy sheriffs burned all of the marijuana except 18.1 grams. He asserts that there may have been plant material in the bales which was not marijuana but that he is unable to prove that fact in mitigation since the material was incinerated. Again, appellant tracks the language of the Dickerson case, contending that he should have been allowed to exclude those portions of the marijuana plant which were excludable under the definition of marijuana in § 20-2-2(15). The idea is that some of the stalk and other parts of the plant may not fit the definition because they may not contain the requisite chemical compounds. To make a case of trafficking in marijuana, the state had to prove that the appellant was in possession of at least 2.2 pounds of the prohibited substance. In this instance, 467 pounds of substance purporting to be marijuana, and obviously believed by all concerned to be marijuana, were confiscated. While it would be foolish practice to destroy evidence before a trial in the ordinary situation, there exists in our minds no doubt that the 467 pounds of "baled green plant material" contained enough marijuana to amount to 2.2 pounds or more. In light of the analysis of the contents of the sample from each bale, there exists a strong and persuasive inference that the remainder of the material was similar, and not merely stalks and sterilized seeds. We find that any error committed in this instance was error without injury as regards the appellant.
Appellant contends that the affidavit was insufficient to justify a finding of probable cause by the magistrate issuing the search warrant. We find, in examining this affidavit, that it is substantially identical to those which have been held to support a finding of probable cause in other cases. The search warrant in this case is similar to that approved by us in Thornton v. State, 390 So.2d 1093 (Ala.Crim.App.1980). We hold that this is a valid search warrant.
Appellant next contends with respect to the warrant that it was obtained by false or fraudulent misrepresentation and/or statements by the affiant. In support of this, appellant gives lengthy consideration to the proposition that a particular person, allegedly one Cynthia McDonald, was the sole source of information and that the police fabricated the story about the confidential informant.
The officer making the affidavit for the search warrant strongly denied that this woman was the confidential informant. The court, in denying the appellant's motion to suppress, had an opportunity to hear all the testimony and observe the demeanor of all the witnesses. He found the fruits of the search were not due to be suppressed. The trial court's ruling is to be given credence unless clearly erroneous or palpably wrong, which we find it was not in this instance. Brumback v. State, 371 So.2d 999 (Ala.Crim.App.1979); Smith v. State, 351 So.2d 668 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert denied, 351 So.2d 675 (Ala.1975).
Appellant also contends that because of his claim that the search was an illegal search, a remark made by him during the search was due to be suppressed. The remark was that he should not have done it, or that he knew better, or words to that effect. Since we find the motion to suppress was properly denied, this statement was admissible.
Appellant contends that error was committed in the course of adducing testimony from the lab technician concerning the marijuana. The assistant district attorney asked Mr. Sparks, the state crime lab analyst, "if envelope No. 1 was a sample from a larger container, a representative sample ... where the original bale or garbage bag contained 29 pounds of marijuana, would you expect there to be a kilogram [2.2 pounds] or more of controlled substance being marijuana or cannabis?" The testimony regarding the weight of bales had been given by another person, Deputy Thrasher. While the lab technician had no personal knowledge of the weight of the bags, we think it was practical to ask him to assume their weight was as previously testified in making his answer. The testimony that the bales weighed 29 pounds was already in evidence.
Appellant argues that the hypothetical requires one to believe Thrasher's testimony. Any hypothetical question based on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v. Tucker
...Maddox described them as "somewhat confusing, and some are, frankly, inconsistent." Id. at 1189. For example, in Morrison v. Alabama, 455 So.2d 240 (Ala.Crim. App.1984), the indictment alleged that the trafficking was done "unlawfully," while the statute used the term "knowingly." The court......
-
Ex parte Harper
...that a drug offense was committed "knowingly" are somewhat confusing, and some are, frankly, inconsistent. In Morrison v. State, 455 So.2d 240, 243 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), for example, the indictment alleged that the trafficking was done "unlawfully," while the statute used the term "knowingly......
-
Haywood v. State, 6 Div. 911
...the indictment are error, especially where objections thereto are overruled and no curative instructions are given. Morrison v. State, 455 So.2d 240, 244 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). However, where the remarks "are ambiguous and do not automatically convey the clear inference of past criminal activit......
-
Stewart v. State
...Johnson v. State. The state also contends that this indictment is deemed sufficient by the court's holding in Morrison v. State, 455 So.2d 240, 243 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), to the effect that a trafficking indictment charging simply "unlawfully" is adequate. The Morrison court rationalized that "......