Mulhern v. State, 1 Div. 33
| Decision Date | 28 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 33 |
| Citation | 494 So.2d 787 |
| Parties | Michael MULHERN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
James M. Byrd and Thomas M. Haas, Mobile, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Victor Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Michael Mulhern was indicted for trafficking in cannabis in violation of § 20-2-80, Code of Alabama 1975. The appellant waived a jury trial and the trial judge found him "guilty as charged in the indictment". The trial judge sentenced the appellant to fifteen years' imprisonment and assessed a $25,000 fine.
At approximately 1:00 p.m. on October 9, 1984, Gerald Young of the Saraland Police Department received a phone call from a man whom he identified as Russell Atchison. He had talked with Atchison several times previously but Atchison had never provided Young with any information.
Atchison asked Young if he knew the appellant and Young replied that he did. Atchison then told Young that at 2:00 p.m. the appellant would drive to a business located at the intersection of Highways 158 and 45 in Prichard in a light blue Toyota with the word "Tiger" written down the side of the car and would be "pulling" marijuana.
Young then asked Atchison to come to the Saraland Police Department, which he did. In the meantime, Young phoned Robert Osborne of the Mobile Police Department and asked him to come to the Saraland Police Department.
When Osborn arrived at 1:20 p.m., he talked to Atchison. Atchison told Osborne that the appellant would be delivering eight pounds of marijuana at the intersection of Highways 158 and 45 at 2:00 and he would be driving a silver Toyota with "Tiger" on the side. The marijuana would be packaged in large plastic bags.
Osborne asked Atchison if he knew the appellant was going to show up. Atchison replied that he did because the appellant was going to pick up some other drugs from Atchison. At this point, Atchison showed Osborne a bag of white powder, which he said was cocaine.
At approximately 1:45 Young and Osborne went to the location given them by Atchison and parked. Both were in unmarked cars. At 2:08 a car which fit the description the officers had been given pulled into a driveway beside a business located at the intersection of Highways 158 and 45. The driver of this car could not be seen because the car windows were mirrored glass.
Young turned on his blue light and he and Osborne followed the car into the driveway. The officers got out of their vehicles and approached the car. Atchison was also at this location in a brown Mercury.
Osborne went to the passenger side of the vehicle, drew his revolver and pointed it at the appellant. Young went to the driver's side of the vehicle and told the appellant to get out of the car. Osborne then came around to the driver's side of the car. As the appellant got out of the car, the aroma of marijuana was detected by the officers. They could see two large plastic bags in the car. Inside the bags the officers found a large quantity of marijuana. A further visual search of the car revealed a pair of hemostats with a partially burned cigarette.
The appellant was then placed under arrest, advised of his Miranda rights and patted down for weapons. In his pocket the officers found a pocketknife and a small quantity of marijuana in a bag.
The evidence seized was locked in Osborne's trunk until he released it to the Mobile Police Department's Crime Lab the next day.
The toxicologist's report on the analysis of this evidence was admitted into evidence as State's Exhibit number 1. It reads as follows:
"1) Hemostats with handrolled cigarette butts:
Laboratory examination of the residue from the hemostats and handrolled cigarette disclosed the presence of marihuana containing tetrahydrocannabinol.
"2) Plastic bag containing plant material and one handrolled cigarette butt:
Laboratory examination of the handrolled cigarette butt and the 3.8 grams of plant material in the plastic bag disclosed the presence of marihuana containing tetrahydrocannabinol.
I
The appellant contends the State did not prove a prima facie case because,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donahoo v. State, 7 Div. 977
...stems, was between 13 and 14 pounds. Appellant relies primarily on the cases of Ex parte Bohannon, [Ms. 87-59, July 29, 1988] (Ala.1988), and Mulhern v. State, 494 So.2d 787 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), as support for his position. However, those two cases are readily distinguishable from this In Ex ......
-
Presley v. State
...of the drug. Ex parte Sellers, 519 So.2d 1292 (Ala.1987); see also Borden v. State, 523 So.2d 508 (Ala.Crim.App.1987); Mulhern v. State, 494 So.2d 787 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). "The State asserts that it met its burden of proving that Bohannon possessed in excess of 2.2 pounds of marijuana and t......
-
Borden v. State
...no adverse ruling by the trial court, we find there is nothing preserved for our review. II The Bordens, relying on Mulhern v. State, 494 So.2d 787 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), argue that the prosecution did not prove a prima facie case of trafficking in marijuana because it failed to prove that the ......
-
Campbell v. State, 8 Div. 110
...a prima facie case, the State must prove that the accused was in possession of more than 2.2 pounds of marijuana." Mulhern v. State, 494 So.2d 787, 789 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (emphasis in the "Possession, whether actual or constructive, has the following three attributes: (1) '[A]ctual or pote......