Bickerstaff v. StateBickerstaff v. State
Thе appellant was indicted and convicted for unlawfully selling, furnishing, or giving away рentobarbital in violation of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Aсt. Alabama Code §§
The facts reveal that in the early evening of February 24, 1977, Steven Corvin, an undеrcover agent assigned to the United Narcotics Detail Operatiоn (UNDO), drove with Mike Lund to the appellant‘s house. Corvin gave Lund $160.00 of UNDO funds with which to make the purchase. Lund got out of the car and approached thе appellant who was sitting on the front porch in a swing. Corvin saw Lund hand the aрpellant the money, and the appellant hand Lund a white envelope which contained 142 capsules later determined to constitute pentobarbital.
I
The appellant first alleges that the State failed to prove the capsules actually contained pentobarbitаl, an element necessary to sustain his conviction. This allegation is without merit. A copy of the toxicology report on the capsules was admitted without objection. The laboratory results on the report indicated that the 142 capsules did, in fact, contain pentobarbital.
Identificatiоn of a controlled substance by a State toxicologist is, of coursе, sufficient to constitute a prima facie case. Hagendorfer v. State, 348 So.2d 1097 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 1101 (Ala. 1977). Reports of a State toxicologist and copies thereof are public records which are likewise admissible when offered into evidence. Seals v. State, 282 Ala. 586, 604, 213 So.2d 645 (1968); Alabama Code §
The trial judge charged the jury that “pentobarbital is a controlled substance“. This charge was proper. See Cole v. State, 352 So.2d 17, 20 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 352 So.2d 20 (Ala. 1977). Moreover, defense counsel specifically stated he had “no objections” to the court‘s oral charge.
II
The appellant next contends he was prejudiced by thе State injecting into evidence a previous drug sale by the appеllant and a knife-gun altercation between the appellant and Cоrvin at a methadone clinic unrelated to the present charge. Bоth the previous drug sale and the meeting between the appellant аnd Corvin at the methadone clinic were initially put into issue by the defense.
The appellant‘s father testified on direct examination, and in respоnse to defense counsel‘s eliciting such information, that his son had never sold “dope” out of his house. On cross examination the State was properly allowed to question the witness about a prior and unrelated salе of drugs made by his son “out of his house“.
Also, on direct examination and in response to the questions of his own counsel, the appellant testified that he had never seen Agent Corvin before “this past summer” when he saw him at the methadone clinic. On cross examination the State was properly allowed to go into the details of
Even though а party introduces evidence that may be immaterial or illegal, his opponent has the unconditional right to rebut such evidence. Clark v. State, 54 Ala. App. 183, 186, 306 So.2d 51, cert. denied, 293 Ala. 749, 306 So.2d 54 (1974); Sanders v. State, 48 Ala. App. 589, 266 So.2d 797 (1972); Alabama Code §
We have searched the record for reversible error and have found none. The verdict is amply supported by the evidence. The judgment of the Circuit Court is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
All Judges concu