State v. Ransom

Decision Date13 February 1967
Docket NumberNo. 51930,No. 2,51930,2
CitationState v. Ransom, 412 S.W.2d 125 (Mo. 1967)
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Johnnie RANSOM, Appellant
CourtMissouri 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.

DONNELLY, Judge.

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 Now, Mr. Storer, I would like to show you State's Exhibit No. 2; do you know what this is? A Yes, sir.

'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.

'THE COURT: What section is that?

'THE WITNESS: Under the list entitled 'List of Stimulants. Amphetamines.' There is a definition of Amphetamine. 'Any stimulant drug consisting of phenylisopropylamine and all derivitives thereof.' This drug Amphetamine Hydrochloride falls under this clause.

'THE COURT: It appears to me Amphetamine only appears two places on this page; one, it's Amphetamine Sulfate, USP, and the bottom line is Nicotinyl Amphetamine. What makes you think that Amphetamine Hydrochloride is included when it only mentions Amphetamine Sulfate?

'THE WITNESS: Amphetamine Hydrochloride is a solid form of phenyliso-propylamine. The list described here is a partial list of the many types of amphetamine derivatives that are available.

'THE COURT: Is Amphetamine Sulfate also a solid form?

'THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

'THE COURT: Would it be a different kind of solid form from the hydrochloride amphetamine?

'THE WITNESS: Not really, not in its action, no, sir. It is just one of the many solid forms in which Amphetamine may appear.

'THE COURT: Amphetamine is mixed with another chemical apparently?

'THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

'THE COURT: To make Amphetamine Sulfate?

'THE WITNESS: That's correct. Amphetamine itself is a clear liquid and in order to make it dispensible, usable, it's prepared into a solid form, one of many salts, when I say salt, it might be Amphetamine Hydrochloride or...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
2 cases
  • State v. Simpson, 27213
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 1, 1976
    ...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
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 11, 1967
    ...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 ......
1 books & journal articles
  • Section 14.94 Technical Defenses
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Criminal Practice Deskbook Chapter 14 Defenses
    • Invalid date
    ...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......