State v. Young, 53039
| Decision Date | 13 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 53039,No. 2,53039,2 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Julius YOUNG, Jr., Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Gary G. Sprick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Sawyer Marglous, Clayton, Donald C. Littleton, St. Louis, for appellant.
BARRETT, Commissioner.
In this case, tried by the court after a waiver in open court of a jury (Criminal Rule 26.01 V.A.M.R.), it was charged, in the language of the statute, that the appellant Julius Young, Jr., with a prior felony conviction of robbery, 'did then and there (on May 27, 1966) unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his control, a certain quantity of a narcotic drug, to wit: .003 grams of Heroin.' RSMo 1959 Supp. § 195.020. The court found the appellant guilty and fixed his punishment at six years' imprisonment. RSMo 1959 § 195.200, subd. 1. (1).
The circumstances were that at 1 p.m. on May 27, 1966, police officer Abernathy arrested the appellant because there was 'an order out for a robbery.' Another person was with Julius when he was arrested but he was not taken into custody. After the arrest the officer searched Julius and he had in his possession 'a brown paper bag containing a pair of shoes, a pawn ticket and three half gelatin capsules.' In response to the officer's inquiry Julius said that he didn't know anything about the capsules. The officer testified that Julius said the shoes were his. The defendant, age 22, in testifying in his own behalf denied ownership, connection or knowledge of the bag and its contents. He said that Evans, shot and killed while Young was in jail, was with him and that he In the police station he did see the shoes, 'which was Ralph's shoes, which he was taking to the pawn shop.' He says that on the way to the pawnshop the police arrested him for robbery and that he was in jail two weeks before he was charged with possession of heroin 'which I had no knowledge of whatsoever.'
The officer said that the three half capsules were in the bottom of the brown paper bag, he examined them and could see in each of them 'a white powdery substance.' In each one And so the officer took the three half capsules to the police laboratory and there the chief of crime analysis scraped the contents of the capsules onto a piece of paper, weighed the contents, 'three milligrams,' and then made a series of chemical analyses and tests to establish that the 'white substance' was heroin.
Upon this appeal the appellant urges the single claim that the court should have directed a verdict in his favor because 'an unsubstantial amount of heroin was found on the defendant to prove possession of a narcotic drug--heroin.' In his argument it is contended that 'only three milligrams were present,' a quantity 'so infinitesimally small as to actually negate the presence of a narcotic drug.' In this connection, relying on California cases (People v. Villalobos, 245 Cal.App.2d 561, 54 Cal.Rptr. 60; People v. Leal, 64 Cal.2d 504, 50 Cal.Rptr. 777, 413 P.2d 665), the appellant contends that in enacting the Missouri statute the legislature intended to penalize 'only a person who possessed a substance of a narcotic potential,' not a useless 'residue' from which Julius was unlikely to get 'any effect.'
The first difficulty with the appellant's reliance on California decisions is that California is one of but four jurisdictions that have not adopted the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, the other forty-six jurisdictions, including Missouri, with slight modifications, have adopted the uniform act. Insofar as material here in 1965 Missouri adopted section 2 of the uniform act, adding to it the possession of apparatus: 'It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, possess, have under his control, * * * any narcotic drug,' except as authorized by law. RSMo 1959 Supp. § 195.020. As others have pointed out under the uniform act, 'A modicum of an illegal durg is sufficient to bring the defendant within the purview of the statute.' State v. Dodd, 28 Wis.2d 643, 137 N.W.2d 465, 469. That court apparently recognized, however, that 'It is conceivable that so small a quantity of a narcotic might be present as to telltale or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper v. State
...573, 90 So.2d 234; Mickens v. People (1961), 148 Colo. 237, 365 P.2d 408; Peachie v. State (1953), 203 Md. 239, 100 A.2d 1; State v. Young (1968), Mo., 427 S.W.2d 510; Robbs v. Commonwealth (1970), 211 Va. 153, 176 S.E.2d 429; State v. Dodd (1965), 28 Wis.2d 643, 137 N.W.2d 465. See Annot.,......
-
State v. Vance
...Peachie v. State, 203 Md. 239, 100 A.2d 1 (Ct.App.1953); People v. Harrington, 396 Mich. 33, 238 N.W.2d 20 (1976); State v. Young, 427 S.W.2d 510 (Mo.1968); State v. McDonald, 92 N.J.Super. 448, 224 A.2d 18 (1966); State v. Winters, 16 Utah 2d 139, 396 P.2d 872 (1964); State v. Larkins, 79 ......
-
People v. Harrington
...P.2d 679; People v. Norman (1962), 24 Ill.2d 403, 182 N.E.2d 188; State v. McDonald (1966), 92 N.J.Super. 448, 224 A.2d 18; People v. Young (Mo.1968), 427 S.W.2d 510; Haley v. State (1969), 7 Md.App. 18, 253 A.2d 'Without local precedent, this Court is free to adopt the minority or majority......
-
State v. Norris, 54349
...by statements and rulings in State v. Virdure, Mo.Sup., 371 S.W.2d 196; State v. Worley, Mo.Sup., 375 S.W.2d 44, and State v. Young, Mo.Sup., 427 S.W.2d 510. Defendant specifically complains that the instruction uses the word 'constructive,' as relates to possession, without defining it. He......