State v. Harveston
| Decision Date | 06 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 67045,67045 |
| Citation | 389 So.2d 63 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Blake HARVESTON. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Don C. Burns, Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
William J. Perkins, Monroe, Howard N. Nugent, Jr., Alexandria, for defendant-appellant.
The principal issue in this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence presented to support the conviction of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
The police obtained a warrant to search a store operated by defendant and the surrounding buildings and property. In executing the warrant, the police found and seized the following items: the remains of ten marijuana cigarettes, found in an ashtray in the kitchen; three packages of cigarette rolling papers, found on the kitchen table and in a file cabinet in the store; one set of balance scales, found in a storeroom; and a band-aid box containing marijuana seed, found in a bedroom window. They also found a wrecked automobile in an unfenced section of the property twenty yards behind the store, and when they unlocked the trunk with keys found in the ignition switch, they found marijuana seeds on the trunk floor and a burlap "Tastee-Tator" sack that contained gleanings of marijuana.
After defendant was arrested and charged with possession, the police searched his wooden leg and found two bags of marijuana, estimated to contain a total of three ounces with an overall value of about $120.00. The charge was then changed to possession with intent to distribute.
Defense counsel did not file a pretrial motion to suppress, but did object unsuccessfully at the bench trial to the introduction of the burlap sack and scales. In announcing the judgment at the completion of the evidence, the trial court stated that the marijuana seized was "not a large quantity", but the burlap sack and scales convinced him defendant was guilty of more than simple possession.
Intent may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a particular case. R.S. 15:445. The quantity of marijuana was not shown to be inconsistent with personal use only and did not of itself establish a reasonable inference that the marijuana seized was intended for distribution. State v. House, 325 So.2d 222 (La. 1975).
Under some circumstances the scales arguably might have raised some inference of an intent to distribute marijuana. These scales, however, were found in a building used as a grocery store, and there was no evidence introduced to contradict the use of these scales in the operation of the store or to indicate that this type of scale was customarily used to measure marijuana. In fact there was no evidence that the scales were in a working condition at the time of the seizure.
As to the burlap sack, the wrecked car was accessible to anyone in the area of the store that was open to the public, and no evidence was introduced to establish that the car even belonged to defendant.
The record, therefore, is seriously deficient on the question of defendant's intent to distribute marijuana. There was no direct evidence that defendant ever attempted to distribute marijuana, and the marijuana he possessed was not in a form or amount usually associated with distribution to others. Furthermore, while intent to distribute may be proved by circumstantial evidence, such intent may not reasonably be inferred where the items seized and the circumstances shown are consistent with conduct not involving distribution of marijuana. Upon review of the entire record we conclude that no rational trier of fact would have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the crime of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Neslo
...has been adopted in Louisiana. State v. Blackburn, 403 So.2d 719 (La.1981); State v. Fontana, 396 So.2d 1251 (La.1981); State v. Harveston, 389 So.2d 63 (La.1980). The relevant portions of the first degree murder statute, R.S. 14:30, "First degree murder is the killing of a human being: (1)......
-
State v. Lane
...of conviction on the lesser included responsive offense, rather than granting an acquittal. La. C.Cr.P. art. 821(E) ; State v. Harveston , 389 So.2d 63, 64-65 (La. 1980). Therefore, defendant's conviction in this case will stand as long as the evidence is sufficient to support either the ch......
-
State v. Vaccaro
... ... 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), is whether, after reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime. State v. Morgan, 389 So.2d 364 (La.1980); State v. Harveston, 389 So.2d 63 (La.1980); State v. Hartman, 388 So.2d 688 (La.1980) ... As only one aggravating circumstance need be proved to support a conviction of first degree murder, defense counsel's argument that the aggravating circumstances were not proven is without merit. Clearly, the ... ...
-
State v. Bodley, 80-KA-1440
...guilty. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Morgan, 389 So.2d 364 (La.1980); State v. Harveston, 389 So.2d 63 (La.1980); State v. Hartman, 388 So.2d 688 For the above reasons, the conviction and sentence of defendant are affirmed. AFFIRMED. DIXO......