Rogers v. State, CR--75--24
| Decision Date | 23 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. CR--75--24,CR--75--24 |
| Citation | 524 S.W.2d 227,258 Ark. 314 |
| Parties | David Eugene ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE or Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Gene Worsham, Little Rock, for appellant.
Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen. by Robert A. Newcomb, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The jury found the appellant Rogers guilty of having delivered a controlled substance and fixed his punishment at a $4,000 fine and imprisonment for eight years. The State's proof showed that on February 5, 1974 Rogers sold a pound of marihuana to an undercover agent, Officer Walters, for $135. Rogers' present attorney, who did not represent him in the trial court, argues three points for reversal.
First, the statutory definition of marihuana contains an exception excluding certain parts of the plant, such as the mature stalks. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 82--2601(n) (Supp.1973). It is contended that Rogers was entitled to a directed verdict of not guilty, because the State failed to prove that the marihuana assertedly sold to Officer Walters did not consist solely of the excepted parts of the plant. The statute itself-- being a unIform acT--answers that contention by expressly providing that it is not necessary for the State to negate any exemption or exception, in the information or at trial, the burden of proof being upon the person claiming the exemption or exception. Section 82--2630; Smith v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 26, 269 F.2d 217 (1959), cert. den., 361 U.S. 865, 80 S.Ct. 130, 4 L.Ed.2d 108 (1959); Garner v. State, Ark., 524 S.W.2d 223, also decided today.
Secondly, it is insisted that the court erred in allowing the package of marihuana to be introduced in evidence, because a positive chain of possession was not established. We find no error. Officer Walters testified that after buying the marihuana on February 5 he took it to the Little Rock police headquarters and stored it in the narcotics safe. Before storing it he put his initials and the date on a piece of paper. He then put that piece of paper and the marihuana in a plastic bag, which he sealed with a heat-sealing machine. He explained that the machine 'wasn't working too proper at that time and I may have added a staple to it.' He also attached police department property tag No. 1101 to the bag, writing his initials on the tag. Two days later Officer Bullerwell took the package, bearing tag No. 1101, from the safe and delivered it to Don Wise, a chemist at the State Department of Health. Wise, after testing the substance and finding it to be marihuana, put the package in a vault, where it remained until he brought it to court on the day of trial. Wise identified the package as the one he received on February 7. Walters, Bullerwell, and Wise all testified.
The appellant, in insisting that the package was not admissible, relies upon several asserted uncertainties in the State's testimony. Although Officer Walters, testifying more than six months after he sealed the bag, said that he 'may have added a staple' to the heat seal, there were no staple marks on the bag. The slip of paper described by Officer Walters was not in the bag when it was offered in evidence. Upon that point the chemist, Wise, testified:
Q. Were there any markings inside the plastic bag?
A. I made note of no markings. I do not know whether there was or not. I don't recall.
Officer Walters identified his handwriting on tag No. 1101, but it was partly in ink and partly in pencil, because 'the pen went bad.' When the officer was asked on cross- examination if he was identifying the tag, his answer was: At that point the witness was interrupted by defense counsel and did not finish whatever he started to say.
Despite some uncertainties in the State's testimony, the trial court properly admitted the package into evidence. Officer Walters testified that he put tag No. 1101 on the package, that he initialed it, and that the initialed tag was on the package when it was offered in evidence. The intervening chain of custody was established. Thus there was a prima facie showing of admissibility. The appellant relies upon Fight v. State, 254 Ark. 927, 497 S.W.2d 262 (1973), but in that case there were somewhat...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gardner v. State
...matters to be argued by counsel and weighed by the jury, but they do not render evidence inadmissible as a matter of law. Rogers v. State, 258 Ark. 314, 524 S.W.2d 227, cert. den. 423 U.S. 995, 96 S.Ct. 423, 46 L.Ed.2d 369. The circumstance that the tapes were not kept under lock and key wa......
-
Callison v. State
...with. See Gardner v. State, 263 Ark. 739, 569 S.W.2d 74; Wickliffe & Scott v. State, 258 Ark. 544, 527 S.W.2d 640; Rogers v. State, 258 Ark. 314, 524 S.W.2d 227, cert. den. 423 U.S. 995, 96 S.Ct. 423, 46 L.Ed.2d 369 This point in Munnerlyn has been cited and followed in Baughman v. State, 2......
-
Graham v. State
...App. 112, 540 S.W.3d 738.In support of her argument that there was an insufficient chain of custody, Graham cites Rogers v. State , 258 Ark. 314, 524 S.W.2d 227 (1975), which was a case where the supreme court affirmed the admission of evidence over a chain-of-custody challenge. Graham asse......
-
Downs v. State, CR
...in Witham v. State, 258 Ark. 348, 524 S.W.2d 244 (1975); Freeman v. State, 238 Ark. 804, 385 S.W.2d 156 (1964); and Rogers v. State, 258 Ark. 314, 524 S.W.2d 227 (1975). We have not held here, nor in earlier cases, that appellant's failure to substantiate the contention of tampering per se ......