State v. Ransom
| Decision Date | 13 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 51930,No. 2,51930,2 |
| Citation | State v. Ransom, 412 S.W.2d 125 (Mo. 1967) |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Johnnie RANSOM, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Lewis R. Mills, St. Louis, for appellant.
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, James P. Jouras, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.
Appellant, Johnnie Ransom, was convicted of selling amphetamine hydrochloride, a stimulant drug, under § 195.240 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., by a jury in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, and his punishment under the provisions of the Habitual Criminal Act, § 556.280 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., was assessed at imprisonment in the custody of the State Department of Corrections for a term of two years. Following rendition of judgment and imposition of sentence an appeal was perfected to this Court.
Appellant was tried under an indictment which, in part charged: 'THAT JOHNNIE RANSOM in the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, on the 13th day of May, 1965, did unlawfully and feloniously sell to the THOMAS ROOKS, a certain stimulant drug, to-wit: 0.15 grams of AMPHETAMINE HYDRO-CHLORIDE, at and for the price and sum of three dollars in legal currency of the United States of America, in violation of Chapter 195, Section 195.240, Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri, 1959.'
William Storer, a criminologist with the St. Louis Police Department, testified for the State. He stated that he analyzed the contents of the foil packet sold by appellant and his analysis showed that the foil packet contained amphetamine hydrochloride. He testified further as follows:
'Q What is it?
'A The document bears among other titles, lists of drugs, barbiturates, and Amphetamine Law.'
'Q Is the drug that you refer to upon that list, Mr. Storer?
'A Yes, sir. The drug falls under the section described here on the list.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
State v. Simpson, 27213
...marijuana. The evidence, above referred to, distinguishes this case from State v. Bridges, 398 S.W.2d 1 (Mo.1966); State v. Ransom, 412 S.W.2d 125 (Mo.1967), and State v. Starks, 419 S.W.2d 82 (Mo.1967), where the absence of evidence identifying the substance involved as being a proscribed ......
-
State v. Starks, 52157
...not a derivative of amphetamine but rather a compound or mixture containing the proscribed drug amphetamine itself.' See also: State v. Ransom, Mo., 412 S.W.2d 125. In this case the information charges defendant with possession of 'amphetamine hydrochloride', but the proof shows the packet ......
-
Section 14.94 Technical Defenses
...of Health list (see 19 C.S.R. § 30-1.010), it is not a controlled substance, State v. Starks, 419 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. 1967); State v. Ransom, 412 S.W.2d 125 (Mo. 1967); State v. Bridges, 398 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1966), unless it is set out in the statutory schedule, State v. Scarlett, 486 S.W.2d 4......