474 So. 2d 142 | Ala. Crim. App. | 1984
Appellant, Ronald Lee Kerr, was indicted by the Etowah County Grand Jury for trafficking in cannabis in violation of Section
On September 26, 1980, Alabama State Trooper Sanders Roberts stopped appellant, who was carrying a passenger in his car, for speeding on Interstate Highway 59 in Etowah County, Alabama. While talking with appellant, Roberts noticed the smell of marijuana. He looked inside appellant's car and saw a partially burned marijuana cigarette with a clip attached to it and an open tobacco pouch containing a substance which appeared to be marijuana.
Roberts called for assistance and Trooper David Duke, a narcotics investigator, arrived shortly thereafter. Duke searched the interior of the car and found cigarette rolling papers in the glove compartment. Although he found no additional marijuana, he detected a strong smell of unburned marijuana. Based on his experience and training Duke deemed the smell to be too strong to have been produced by the small amount of marijuana which had already been found. Therefore, he removed the keys from the ignition and opened the trunk. He removed sporting equipment and other items until he found a duffel bag. He unlatched the bag and turned it upside down. He found what later laboratory analysis confirmed to be seven one-pound bags of marijuana, a shoe box *144 containing hashish and a mason jar containing liquid hashish extract. Duke testified at trial that in his opinion the drugs in appellant's car were worth $25,000.
Appellant contends on appeal that the trial court erred to reversal in failing to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of unlawful possession of marijuana.
We find it unnecessary to address the issue of whether possession of marijuana is a lesser included offense of trafficking in cannabis, for in Beasley v. State,
Appellant was found in possession of more than 2.2 pounds of marijuana, and under the facts of this case was properly charged and convicted under Section
Next appellant argues that Section
Because First Amendment rights are not implicated in the conduct proscribed by this statute the overbreadth doctrine is inapplicable. McCrary v. State,
The void-for-vagueness doctrine, however, protects against legislation providing insufficient warning of what conduct is unlawful. E.g., Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, HoffmanEstates, Inc.,
We find Section
We find no merit in appellant's argument that the body of the statute does not comport with its title. The constitutional mandate that laws are to be restricted to one subject clearly expressed in its title is not to be so exactingly or hypercritically enforced as to cripple legislation but *145
is to be accorded liberal interpretation. Dickerson v. State,
Lastly, appellant contends that the discovery of a small quantity of marijuana in the passenger compartment of his car and the strong smell of unburned marijuana emanating from the car after the removal of the small quantity did not provide probable cause for the police officer to search the trunk of his car.
This issue was addressed in Sterling v. State,
We have carefully searched the record for errors injuriously affecting the substantial rights of the appellant and have found none. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
All the Judges concur.