Patterson v. State
| Decision Date | 04 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 31244,31244 |
| Citation | 238 Ga. 204,232 S.E.2d 233 |
| Parties | R. L. PATTERSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia 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.
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'd 261 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. See Jackson v. State, supra, and also, Barnard v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...... The request must be reasonable. If any valid reason exists for not permitting the defendant to use the substance 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 extrinsic offenses. The trial court's duty to mandate independent inspection of critical evidence in the possession ......
-
State v. Blackwell
....... 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 of the substance made. That right, however, is not absolute. The demand must be timely, the request must be reasonable, and the trial ......
-
Park v. State
...... Following conviction, Park sought a new trial because of the refusal of an independent eye exam, but the court denied the motion. Citing Sabel v. State, 1 Patterson v. State, 2 and three federal cases, 3 Park contends he was entitled to the examination because the condition of the eye was critical to his defense, for aggravated battery requires proof that the victim was deprived of a body member or that the body member was rendered useless. 4 Sabel held due ......
-
Com. v. Ortiz
......1970); Fullbright v. United States, 392 F.2d 432, 434-435 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 830, 89 S.Ct. 97, 21 L.Ed.2d 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 ......