Wallace v. State
2013 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4
Ala. Crim. App.2013Background
- Wallace was convicted of chemical endangerment of a child and unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance (methamphetamine); sentences were 10 years for each, running concurrently.
- Evidence at trial included officers’ observations of a “one-pot” meth lab configuration at Wallace’s Plum Street residence and ET’s videotaped statements describing Wallace handling the bottle and “smoking” the substance.
- Detective Schlemmer explained manufacturing steps and identified materials typical of meth production, including a red-tinted liquid suggesting pseudoephedrine involvement.
- Alabama law allows drug convictions under circumstantial or lay testimony without requiring scientific test results to prove a substance is a controlled substance.
- The State attempted to prove a second theory—possession of listed precursor chemicals under §20-2-181—with Wallace allegedly possessing precursors—but the record lacked direct evidence of any listed precursor in Wallace’s possession.
- The majority affirmed both convictions; the dissent would remand for an attempted-manufacture conviction and hold the precursor-chemical theory unsupported by sufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for unlawful manufacture | State—evidence showed meth manufacturing elements beyond reasonable doubt | Wallace—no scientific proof the substance was meth or that precursors were possessed | Sufficient evidence supported unlawful manufacture conviction |
| Whether Wallace was a “responsible person” for chemical endangerment | State—Wallace supervised ET and resided with her; thus a responsible person | Wallace—no sufficient supervision evidence | Wallace was a responsible person for chemical endangerment |
| Failure to instruct on precursor chemicals in §20-2-181 | State—no need for explicit listing; charges alternative methods | Wallace—trial court should define precursors; failure prejudicial | Harmless error as to precursor-definition instruction (majority view) |
Key Cases Cited
- J.M.A. v. State, 74 So.3d 487 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) (identification of a drug may be based on lay/circumstantial evidence without scientific testing)
- Breckenridge v. State, 628 So.2d 1012 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (circumstantial evidence can sustain drug convictions)
- United States v. Baggett, 954 F.2d 674 (11th Cir.1992) (identity of a drug may be established by circumstantial/lay evidence)
- United States v. Harrell, 737 F.2d 971 (11th Cir.1984) (expansive view permitting non-technical testimony to prove narcotics identity)
- United States v. Dolan, 544 F.2d 1219 (4th Cir.1976) (circumstantial proof may establish drug identity without chemical analysis)