Wright v. State
Decision Date | 21 September 1990 |
Citation | 570 So.2d 872 |
Parties | Judith Evelyn WRIGHT v. STATE. CR 89-456. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
James P. Graham, Jr. of Graham & Harrison, Phenix City, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Sandra Lewis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Judith Evelyn Wright was indicted for trafficking in marijuana in violation of § 13A-12-231, Code of Alabama 1975. She was found "guilty as charged in the indictment" and was sentenced to 14 years in prison. She contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove a prima facie case of trafficking in marijuana.
Specifically, the appellant contends that the State failed to prove that she was in possession of marijuana in an amount in excess of one kilo or 2.2 pounds and less than 2,000 pounds in violation of § 13A-12-231.
The record reveals that Taylor Noggle, a criminalist for the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, testified to the weight of the marijuana as follows:
I then determined the weight of the plant material contained in each of the individual bags, and then I performed two chemical tests on the plant material. The first called the Duquenois-Levine test and the second called thin layer chromatography.
(R. 125-127.) (Emphasis added.)
When a defendant is being prosecuted for trafficking in marijuana, the burden is on the State to prove that the defendant was in possession of more than 2.2 pounds of marijuana as is defined by § 20-2-2(15), Code of Alabama 1975. Day v. State, 539 So.2d 410 (Ala.Crim.App.1988); Mulhern v. State, 494 So.2d 787 (Ala.Crim.App.1986); Dickerson v. State, 414 So.2d 998 (Ala.Crim.App.1982). Once the State proves that the defendant is in possession of more than 2.2 pounds of marijuana, the burden...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Presley v. State
...exhibit 1 contained any excludable material. The defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal was properly denied. Wright v. State, 570 So.2d 872 (Ala.Cr.App.1990); Day, 539 So.2d at 412-13. See also Higdon v. State, 527 So.2d 1352, 1354 (Ala.Cr.App.1988) (the forensic lab analyst testifi......
-
Ex parte Presley
...exhibit 1 contained any excludable material. The defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal was properly denied. Wright v. State, 570 So.2d 872 (Ala.Cr.App.1990); Day [v. State], 539 So.2d at 412-13 [Ala.Cr.App.1988]. See also Higdon v. State, 527 So.2d 1352, 1354 (Ala.Cr.App.1988) (the......