Radke v. State
Decision Date | 04 December 1973 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 231 |
Citation | 293 So.2d 312,52 Ala.App. 397 |
Parties | James Lester RADKE, alias v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Rowe, Lane & Rowe, Enterprise, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., Montgomery, and Samuel L. Adams, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Dothan, for the State.
Possession of marihuana: sentence, six years in the penitentiary.
The appellant was present in the Burger Inn in Enterprise when State officers staged a dragnet raid. In a storeroom the searchers found a box which held about nineteen pounds of marihuana.
Shortly before this raid a State witness, Officer Freddie Strength had sub rosa approached Marcus Polk, an employee of the Burger Inn. Strength, wearing 'blue jeans, shirt and a pair of boots' drove up in a gold Chevrolet. Inside the Inn he conversed with Polk.
Strength went into the storeroom with Polk. Polk got the marihuana down from a shelf. Radke apparently followed them, for Strength testified, 'It was a subject behind me, I turned and looked, it was the defendant, Mr. Radke.' Strength asked how much marihuana was in the box. 'Both replied, twenty pounds.'
It is evincingly clear that Radke never touched the marihuana. Nor did he ever enter into the bargaining negotiations between Polk and Strength. Whatever might have developed is, on this record, unknown because as Polk was asking Radke to get a scale the raiding party irrupted into the hamburger establishment. The transcript is silent as to whether or not Radke either heard or complied with Polk's request to fetch the scale.
Radke's assertion with that of Polk that the box held twenty pounds came only after Strength had opened the box. (R. 78, 84, 87). All conversation about sale and delivery took place only between Polk and Strength. Radke was an onlooker, though only part of the time; he never touched the contraband. (R. 87). He was not an employee of, or in any way associated with the Burger Inn. His only words were 'twenty pounds.' No testimony was given of any word or circumstance emanating from Radke that he knew of the marihuana before he followed Polk and Strength to the storeroom door.
We find nothing in the testimony in the presence and hearing of the jury--and no record page citation is given--to support the State's assertion in brief that Polk And appellant took Strength to the back room. Albeit Polk and Strength were careless in not excluding a curious restaurant customer, logically their unfurtiveness does not, on this record, bring Radke within the nexus of their supposed conspiracy.
Possession--the visible possibility of exercising physical control over personalty--is usually divided as actual (manucaptive) or constructive. Possession has three attributes: (1) actual or potential physical control, (2) intention to exercise dominion and (3) external manifestations of intent and control. 72 C.J.S. pp. 233--235.
In Davis v. State, 40 Ala.App. 609, 119 So.2d 236, Harwood, P.J., wrote:
'The appellant was entitled to have given his request for the affirmative charge, with hypothesis, and to have granted his motion for a new trial, both as to the possession charge and to the charge of maintaining an unlawful drinking place.
'In the present case not an iota of evidence was presented relative to the ownership or control of the land whereon the beer was found.
This court has applied the same requisites of proof of constructive possession...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Virgilio v. State
...774 (1947), where presence in the vicinity of a moonshine still was not sufficient to warrant conviction. Accord Radke v. State, 52 Ala.App. 397, 293 So.2d 312 (1973), aff'd 292 Ala. 290, 293 So.2d 314 (1974); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530, 573 A.2d 831 (1990); Com. v. Costa, 407 Mass. 216, ......
-
Donahoo v. State, 7 Div. 977
...or potential control; (2) intention to exercise dominion; and (3) external manifestations of intent and control. Radke v. State, 52 Ala.App. 397, 398, 293 So.2d 312, 313 (1973), affirmed, 292 Ala. 290, 293 So.2d 314 (1974). Although the evidence in the present case established that the defe......
-
Robinette v. State, 4 Div. 478
...possession of one of the substances enumerated therein. Hamilton v. State, 496 So.2d 100 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Radke v. State, 52 Ala.App. 397, 293 So.2d 312 (1973), aff'd, 292 Ala. 290, 293 So.2d 314 (1974). Constructive possession arises only where the illegal substance is found on premises ......
-
Chatom v. State
...potential physical control, (2) intention to exercise dominion, and (3) external manifestations of intent and control. Radke v. State, 52 Ala.App. 397, 398, 293 So.2d 312, affirmed, 292 Ala. 290, 293 So.2d 314 The appellant analogizes his situation to the rule that an accusation of drunkenn......