People v. Baker, 89
| Decision Date | 15 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 89,89 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BAKER. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Samuel W. Barr, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank G. Millard, Atty.Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Gerald K. O'Brien, Pros. Atty., County of Wayne, Ralph Garber, Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., Garfield Nichols, Asst. Pros. Atty., Chief Appellate Division Thomas J. Foley, Jr., Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for the People.
Before the Entire Bench.
Defendant Gloria Baker was tried and convicted for violation of C.L.1948, § 335.102, Stat.Ann.1949 Supp. § 18.1102, which reads as follows: 'It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation, other than a drug manufacturer or wholesaler, licensed physician, licensed dentist, licensed veterinarian, licensed druggist or pharmacist, hospital, or police or public health laboratory, to have in possession any barbituric acid and any of its derivatives, chloral hydrate or paraldehyde, unless the same are contained in the original container, as dispensed to them.'
The facts upon which conviction rests are as follows. Defendant was arrested on March 3, 1950, on a criminal charge, not connected with this case. When she reached the police station, her purse was searched and in her purse was found two pills. A test made of these tablets showed that they contained barbituric acid. Following this finding the present information was filed against her for violation of the above statute. The cause came on for trial and testimony of the above facts was introduced. At the close of the people's case, defendant made a motion for a verdict of not guilty for the following reason, 'No proof has been offered by the People as to what kind of a container the barbituric acid was in.' Thereupon, the court recalled one of the people's witnesses, a police officer, who testified that the pills were lying loose in the purpose and that there was no container in the purse. Upon denial of the motion, defendant took the stand and testified that the tablets were dispensed to her by a pharmacist upon the prescription of Dr. Johnston whose office is located in the Fisher Building in Detroit. The defendant, having waived a jury trial, was tried before a judge of the recorder's court who found her guilty of violating the mentioned act.
Upon leave being granted, defendant appeals and urges that the motion should have been granted because under the statute the people failed to prove that defendant was not any one of the parties enumerated in the statute. The people urge that proof of the negative allegations set forth in the statute, being within the knowledge of defendant, she must show that she comes within the exceptions. The people also urge that under C.L.1948, § 767.48, it was not necessary to aver the negative allegations mentioned in the statute and therefore not incumbent upon the people to prove the same.
Section 767.48, C.L.1948, Stat.Ann. § 28.988, provides:
We concur with the people's claim and hold that it was not necessary to allege or prove the negative allegations.
Defendant also urges that it was incumbent upon the people to prove a container in which the barbituric acid was dispensed.
Section 335.103, C.L.1948, Stat.Ann.1949 Supp. § 18.1103, provides: 'It shall be the duty of every licensed physician, dentist, veterinarian, druggist, pharmacist or hospital, when dispensing any barbituric acid and any of its derivatives chloral hydrate or paraldehyde, to mark on the dispensing container, the name of the patient, the date, and the name of the person dispensing the same.'
Under the above statute a druggist may not dispense barbituric acid without marking on the dispensing container the information required by statute. It necessarily follows that such barbituric acid may not be dispensed without a container and the fact that the pills were not in any container is proof that they were not in their original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...case for [73 MICHAPP 474] the purpose of admitting testimony in behalf of either the prosecution or the defense". People v. Baker, 332 Mich. 320, 324, 51 N.W.2d 240, 242 (1952). See People v. Cissom, 39 Mich.App. 80, 81-82, 197 N.W.2d 282 Where proof existed that the witness was a res gesta......
-
People v. Baker
...that Schrader was incorrectly decided or that under M.C.L.A. § 767.48 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.988) as construed in People v. Baker (1952), 332 Mich. 320, 51 N.W.2d 240, the people were not required as part of their affirmative case to prove that the defendant did not have a license. See, a......
-
People v. Sinclair, Docket No. 7814
...drugs is an exercise of the police power of the state designed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. See People v. Baker (1952), 332 Mich. 320, 51 N.W.2d 240. The inclusion of marijuana in that statute does not offend equal protection or due process of law. People v. Stark (196......
-
People v. White
...shall be considered as an allegation that no legal excuse for the doing of the act exists in the particular case.' In People v. Baker (1952), 332 Mich. 320, 51 N.W.2d 240, the court applied the above provision in a case similar to the one at 'Defendant Gloria Baker was tried and convicted f......