Ramsey v. State
| Decision Date | 21 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 116 |
| Citation | 43 Ala.App. 617,197 So.2d 763 |
| Parties | Robin Eugene RAMSEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
John Coleman, Mobile, for appellant.
Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and Julian S. Pinkston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant, Robin Eugene Ramsey, appeals from a conviction under an indictment charging that he 'unlawfully did possess secobarbital sodium and amobarbital sodium, salts of barbital.' The jury returned the following verdict: 'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment and assess a fine of $1.00.' The court assessed additional punishment of two years in the penitentiary.
The state's evidence tended to show that on September 5, 1964, Detectives Romagnano and Mayo of the Mobile Police Department saw defendant sitting at the bar in the Paradise Cafe. As they approached him defendant threw a vial containing red and blue capsules on the floor. Detective Romagnano stated the label on the vial indicated the capsules had been issued by a druggist pursuant to a prescription issued in the name of Robert Robinson.
The testimony of Detective Mayo was essentially the same as that of Detective Romagnano.
Dr. Nelson Grubb, a State Toxicologist, testified that on September 5th these detectives turned over to him twenty-seven red and blue capsules. He made a chemical analysis and found they contained 'two barbiturates, seconal sodium and amobarbital.' He was asked:
Detective Romagnano was recalled to the stand, and after proper predicate was laid, he testified defendant said, 'You got me man' and 'Don't book me, I want to make a deal.'
The defendant testified he was 22 years of age; that he was in the Paradise Lounge and was intoxicated when he was approached by Detectives Romagnano and Mayo. He testified he had no knowledge of the pills and denied making any of the statements testified to by Detective Romagnano.
The pertinent parts of Section 242 of Title 22, Code of Alabama, 1940, as amended, read as follows:
'It shall be unlawful for any person * * * to sell, furnish, or give away any * * * barbital * * * or any derivatives, compounds, or mixtures of any of the drugs possessing hypnotic properties or effects or any salt or compound of any of the foregoing substances, or any preparation or compound containing any of the foregoing substances or their salts, * * *.'
Section 255(b), Title 22, Code of Alabama, 1940, as amended, reads in part as follows:
'Any person who possesses any narcotic or other drug enumerated in section 242 of this chapter * * * is guilty of a felony, * * *.'
Section 258(9) of Title 22, Code of Alabama, supra, by reference to section 258(3) of said Title 22, makes the possession of a barbiturate as defined in section 258(2) of said title, a misdemeanor punishable by not more than one year, or a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or other, for the first offense. Sec. 258(2) 'Definitions.--For the purpose of this chapter:
'(a) 'barbiturates' means the salts and derivates of barbituric acid, also known as malonyl urea, having hypnotic or somnifacient action, and compounds, preparations and mixtures thereof.'
Appellant urges in brief that the statute under which he was tried and convicted of a felony is unconstitutional and void in that it violates the due process clause of the constitution, 1901, Article 1, Section 6, for the reason that under the above statutes as they now stand a defendant may be prosecuted for a felony while his companion in crime, committing the identical act composed of the same elements, may be prosecuted for a misdemeanor at the whim of the prosecuting authorities.
In the 'Barbiturates' Act, General Acts of Alabama 1947, at pages 179--182, now codified as Chapter 9A, Title 22, Sections 258(1) et seq., Code 1940, the legislature repealed 'all laws or parts of laws in conflict with this Act.'
Thereafter, 1961 Extra Session, p. 2175, the legislature amended Section 242 of Title 22, Code supra, by inserting 'or any other drug to which the narcotic laws of the United States apply' in the first and fourth sentences. In amending this section, the legislature rewrote the entire section and included 'barbital' and its salts in the class of drugs the possession of which is made a felony.
The state insists that barbital and barbiturates are separate and distinct drugs with a completely different chemical formula; that barbital is a drug of a more dangerous nature than barbituric acid and that by including 'barbital' in the 1961 amendment of Sectin 242, Title 22, supra, it was the legislative intention that possession of barbital be punished as a felony. We find no merit in the defendant's contention that a constitutional question is presented. Neither do we agree with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
...incomplete. The law supplied them by referring the finding to the indictment, and the offence therein charged." In Ramsey v. State, 43 Ala.App. 617, 197 So.2d 763, this court said that no requirement exists for the jury to indicate by its verdict whether a defendant is guilty of a felony or......
-
Pryor v. State, 1 Div. 147
...possession of codeine and phenobarbital constituted a misdemeanor. Schenher v. State, 38 Ala.App. 573, 90 So.2d 234; Ramsey v. State, 43 Ala.App. 617, 197 So.2d 763; Thompson v. State,44 Ala.App. 414, 211 So.2d 505; Brandies v. State, 44 Ala.App. 648, 219 So.2d 404; Jordan v. State, 44 Ala.......
- Johnson v. State
-
Brandies v. State
...was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary. I. The first violation of the barbiturate law is a misdemeanor. Ramsey v. State, 43 Ala.App. 617, 197 So.2d 763, decided February 21, 1967. Possession of 'demoral' or 'isonipecaine' is denounced by Code 1940, T. 22, § 255(b), as amended, on fi......