Snider v. State, 6 Div. 461

• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
• Writing for the Court: DeCARLO; DeCARLO
• Citation: Snider v. State, 406 So.2d 1008 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981)
• Decision Date: 26 May 1981
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 461
• Parties: Ronnie SNIDER v. STATE.

Page 1008

406 So.2d 1008

Ronnie SNIDER v. STATE.

6 Div. 461.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 4, 1981.

C. Delaine Mountain and Walter P. Crownover, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Helen P. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

DeCARLO, Judge.

Sale of marijuana; fifteen years.

Terry Bowman, a sixteen-year-old Lamar County High School student, testified that he and two other boys went to the appellant's residence one day early in September in order to purchase marijuana. Appellant and his wife were in their backyard when the boys arrived. Bowman and one of the other boys, Twaine Lawrence, went behind the house where Bowman engaged in a conversation with appellant. The record reflects the following:

"A. That conversation took place at the residence of Ronnie Snider here in Vernon?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Was Ronnie Snider present?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. His wife was also present?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Tell the jury the conversation, please?

"A. I went around to the side of the house and I said-he was down there and I said 'hi' and he said 'hi come on in.' I climbed through part of the fence that was bent away and I went through there and I asked him if he had some marijuana, some reefer, and he said 'no.' He said he might possibly be able to get me some next week sometime so I said 'all right' and I told him I wanted to get and me and the other boys left.

"Q. Was there any conversation about the quantity that he expected to get?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. What did he say about that?

"A. Somewhere around two pounds.

....

"Q. Did he say anything about you coming back for that at any later time?

"A. He just said to come back some other time next week."

The following Wednesday, September 10, the three boys returned to appellant's residence around 11:00 A.M. Terry Bowman and Twaine Lawrence approached the house, while the third boy, Richard Bowman, remained in the truck in which they were traveling.

The appellant's wife met Bowman at the door and the following transpired:

"We walked up to the house and knocked on the house-knocked on the door and his wife, Ronnie Snider's wife, came up to the door and said 'hi, come on in.' I walked inside the house and I asked if I could get two joints from her and she said they didn't have it in the small quantity-they didn't have it rolled up but they had it in dime bags.

"She went back there to the back and brought some back and pinched out about two-gave her about two dollars and I didn't have no rolling papers or nothing at that time and I couldn't roll it then. I went back out and me and Twaine got back into the truck and left.

"Q. What kind of container was the marijuana in?

"A. I had a cigarette pack-I had to go out to the truck and get the plastic off the cigarette pack and go back in there and put it in there.

"Q. You paid her two dollars for it?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Was this at the same house where you had discussed the purchase of marijuana with Ronnie Snider?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. The lady you were talking about as being his wife; do you know her name?

"A. No, sir.

"Q. Was it the same lady that was there on the previous week when you discussed the transaction with him?

"A. Yes, sir."

The three boys then returned to school and went to their trade school class. After they returned to their school from the trade school, Terry Bowman wrapped the marijuana in a piece of paper and hid it in a wooden school locker overnight. The next day Bowman removed it from his locker and placed it in his pocket. During the third period of school, the three boys went to a truck and rolled the marijuana into cigarettes. Terry Twaine smoked the marijuana in the truck, while Richard Bowman stood watch. After they finished, they place the remains of the cigarettes under the truck. There was enough marijuana left for one cigarette. Terry Bowman gave it to Twaine Lawrence, who put it in his shirt pocket.

While the boys were smoking the marijuana, they were observed by personnel in the school kitchen, who reported the incident to faculty members. Two teachers searched the area around the truck, found the cigarette butts and reported the incident to the school principal, Mr. David Hulsey.

Mr. Hulsey contacted Police Chief Van Duke and the two men proceeded to the vocational school. Twaine Lawrence, along with several other students, was called to the director's office at the school. Lawrence, who had removed his shirt containing the marijuana at the school because of the heat, picked up the shirt and carried it with him to the office. Twaine seated himself in the office and placed the shirt under his leg, thus raising Mr. Hulsey's suspicion. Hulsey asked for the shirt and when Twaine handed it to him the package of marijuana rolled out of the shirt. Hulsey testified the package was a cellophane wrapper from a cigarette package, filled with a substance which appeared to be marijuana, which he immediately turned over to Chief Duke.

Twaine told Hulsey he purchased the marijuana from the appellant. Terry Bowman was questioned separately at the trade school office, and told the same story to which he testified at trial.

Chief Duke testified he received the package from Mr. Hulsey and Twaine Lawrence in the vocational school office and then put it into an envelope, sealed it, and locked it in his office. He then gave it to Charles Tate to take to the State laboratory to have it analyzed.

Melinda Long, a laboratory analyst for the State, testified she received a package of vegetable matter from Investigator Charles Tate. Her tests on the substance proved it to be marijuana.

Twaine Lawrence testified to substantially the same facts as presented in the testimony of Terry Bowman. However, he did not hear all of the conversation with appellant on the boys' first visit; he remained outside the house and did not observe the actual sale by appellant's wife.

The State rested at the conclusion of Lawrence's testimony. Appellant moved to exclude the State's evidence and the trial court denied his motion.

The defense called appellant to testify in his own behalf. Appellant recalled the boys' visit to his house and a discussion with them in the backyard of his house. The record reflects his recollection of the conversation and subsequent events as follows:

"Q. Tell me what was said during that conversation?

"A. Well, they come around there and asked me if I had any marijuana I would sell them and I told them no, I didn't sell any and they called me-called some names and they said that they sent them up there.

"Q. Called some names and said they sent them up there?

"A. (Witness nods head.)

"Q. What did you tell them?

"A. I told them that I didn't-that I didn't sell the stuff.

"Q. At any time during that conversation did you tell them that you might could get them some?

"A. No.

"Q. At any time during that conversation did you say anything about getting a couple of pounds for them to come back later?

"A. No "Q. On September 10, you heard the boys testify that they went to your home and purchased marijuana. Were you present in your home on September 10 when they came to your home?

"A. No.

"Q. Where were you on September 10, 1980?

"A. I was working."

Appellant stated he had no knowledge of the boys' subsequent visit to his house and their purchase of marijuana from his wife until the time of the arrest. Appellant also stated that his wife did not tell him about the boys' second visit until after he was released from jail. She told appellant that she had found the marijuana on the side of the road, and had sold the boys some upon their request. The defense rested at the conclusion of appellant's testimony.

I

Appellant argues the trial court erred in overruling the motion to exclude the State's evidence because the State failed to prove he was connected with the crime charged. He asserts the State failed to show any community of interest or unlawful intent connecting appellant with his wife in the sale of the marijuana.

The evidence produced at trial was sufficient to raise a jury question as to appellant's involvement in the crime. We must view the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the State. Bass v. State, 55 Ala.App. 88, 313 So.2d 208 (1975). The State's evidence indicated that the teenage boys approached the appellant in search of marijuana. They were told that he could and would sell marijuana to them, although not until the following week, for lack of a present supply. Appellant's wife was present and capable of hearing appellant's instructions to the boys to return the following week. When the boys did indeed return, as they were previously instructed to by appellant, the wife, without hesitation, admitted an almost total stranger into her house. She consummated the prearranged illegal sale, undoubtedly on the basis of her knowledge of Terry Bowman through her husband's conversation and agreement with the boy to sell him marijuana. She knew the boy returned at her husband's instruction, and with his approval, to purchase the marijuana. Terry Bowman testified that she said:

"... they didn't have it in the small quantity-they didn't have it rolled up but they had it in dime bags." (Emphasis added)

It was reasonable under these facts for the jury to infer that appellant and his wife acted in concert with a community of purpose in arranging and consummating the illegal sale with the teenage boys. Kendrick v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 377 So.2d 1112, cert. den., Ala., 377 So.2d 1114 (1979). An illegal community of purpose or conspiracy need not be proved by positive testimony, and in fact, is rarely so proved. Rather, the jury must look to the conduct of the parties and the totality of the testimony adduced at trial to determine the existence and extent of the conspiracy. Kendrick, supra; Knight v. State, 50 Ala.App. 457, 280 So.2d 163 (1973).

The State is required to produce evidence which affords a reasonable inference that the defendant...