Patterson v. State

Decision Date04 January 1977
Docket NumberNo. 31244,31244
CitationPatterson v. State, 238 Ga. 204, 232 S.E.2d 233 (Ga. 1977)
PartiesR. L. PATTERSON v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Albert Horn, Atlanta, for appellant.

Robert F. Oliver, Clarkesville, for appellee.

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Isaac Byrd, Staff Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, amicus curiae.

INGRAM, Justice.

This is a drug case with a due process issue that is here on certioari.The question we address is whether the defendant, charged with possession of marijuana, has a right to an independent analysis of the alleged marijuana.The Court of Appeals held that the defendant does not have a right to make an independent analysis.

The defendant was arrested by the GBI in August, 1971, and charged with possession of marijuana in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act(Code Ann. § 79A-801, et seq.)The State Crime Laboratory received samples of the alleged marijuana during 1971, subjected it to a chemical analysis, and determined that it was marijuana.The evidence was destroyed in February, 1974, pursuant to a routine procedure of the State Crime Laboratory.

In April, 1975, the defendant filed a motion requesting an opportunity to have an independent examination of the evidence, alleging that it was not a proscribed substance within the meaning of Code Ann § 79A-802(13).The destruction of the alleged marijuana by the State Crime Laboratory two months earlier rendered compliance with the defendant's request impossible.In July, 1975, defendant was convicted in Rabun Superior Court of possession of marijuana and sentenced to two years in jail and fined $2,000.A state's witness from the State Crime Laboratory testified at trial that the substance seized from the defendant had been scientifically tested by him and found to be marijuana.The laboratory report was introduced into evidence.In Patterson v. State, 138 Ga.App. 290, 226 S.E.2d 115(1976), the Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's convictions, holding that his constitutional rights were not violated by an absence of an independent analysis of the alleged marijuana.

The constitutional requirement that a criminal defendant be afforded a fair trial and an adequate opportunity to prepare his defense sometimes poses problems in Georgia because of the absence of any meaningful procedure for pretrial discovery in criminal cases.Our sister states of Mississippi and Alabama have held that, notwithstanding the absence of a criminal discovery statute, due process requires that a person accused of possession of a prohibited substance must be given the opportunity to have an expert of his own choosing conduct an independent examination of the evidence.Warren v. State, 292 Ala. 71, 288 So.2d 826(1973);Jackson v. State, 243 So.2d 396, aff'd261 So.2d 126(Miss.1971).See, also, State v. Migliore, 261 La. 722, 260 So.2d 682(1972);and, State v. Smith (W.Va.), 193 S.E.2d 550(1972).(The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia premised their holding, that a defendant charged with possession of marijuana be given an opportunity to examine it independently, on Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 86 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215(1963)).In other states having criminal discovery statutes permitting the defendant to inspect or copy tangible evidence in the possession, custody or control of the state and material to the defense, 1 it has been held on statutory grounds that a defendant charged with possession of a prohibited substance must be given an opportunity to have the allegedly illegal substance examined independently.Terrell v. State, 521 S.W.2d 618(Tex.Cr.App.1975).State v. Gaddis, 530 S.W.2d 64(Tenn.1975).(The Supreme Court of Tennessee viewed the legislative enactment of these criminal discovery statutes as a response to the demands of due process).People v. Spencer, 79 Misc.2d 72, 361 N.Y.S.2d 240(N.Y.1974);State v. Cloutier, 302 A.2d 84(Me.1973);James v. Commonwealth, 482 S.W.2d 92(Ky.1972).

In line with these authorities we recognize the general right of a defendant charged with possession or sale of a prohibited substance to have an expert of his own choosing analyze it independently.Where the defendant's conviction or acquittal is dependent upon the identification of the substance as contraband, due process of law requires that analysis of the substance not be left completely within the province of the state.SeeJackson v. State, supra, and also, Barnard v. Henderson, 514 F.2d 744(5th Cir.1975).

Of course, the defendant does not have an absolute, unqualified right to examine such evidence.The motion for an independent examination must be timely made.The trial court in the exercise of its inherent power to conduct the proceedings...

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

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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
71 cases
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 5 Diciembre 1983
    ...for an independent analysis, the trial court may, as a matter of discretion, refuse to permit such an examination." Patterson v. State, 238 Ga. 204(2), 232 S.E.2d 233 (1977). a). We do not think that the court erred by failing to expressly permit inspection of fibers relating to the ten ext......
  • State v. Blackwell
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 14 Julio 2000
    ...testing the urine as provided in the consent order for such testing, destroyed the urine after 12 months. Pursuant to Patterson v. State, 238 Ga. 204, 232 S.E.2d 233 (1977), an accused charged with possession or sale of a prohibited substance is entitled to have an independent examination o......
  • Park v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 21 Enero 1998
    ...10, 16-18(6), 282 S.E.2d 61 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Rower v. State, 264 Ga. 323, 325(5), 443 S.E.2d 839 (1994).2 238 Ga. 204, 232 S.E.2d 233 (1977).3 White v. Maggio, 556 F.2d 1352, 1356-1358 (5th Cir.1977) (inspection of bullets); United States v. Herndon, 536 F.2d 1027, 1029 (......
  • Com. v. Ortiz
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 12 Septiembre 1978
    ...101 (1968); 2 Patterson v. State, 133 Ga.App. 742, 212 S.E.2d 858 (1975), aff'd, 138 Ga.App. 290, 226 S.E.2d 115 (1976), and 238 Ga. 204, 232 S.E.2d 233 (1977); Commonwealth v. Hernley, 216 Pa.Super. 177, 263 A.2d 904 (1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 914, 91 S.Ct. 886, 27 L.Ed.2d 813 (1971). F......
  • Get Started for Free