State v. SibleyState v. Sibley
James Sibley was charged by bill of information with knowingly and intentionally possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute, in violation of
Defendant was arrested as a result of a narcotics raid conduсted by the Bogalusa Police Department on August 4, 1973 at about 5:00 a. m. At that time, the Bogalusa police officers executed search warrants for two residences, one located at 554 Marx Avenue and the other at 340 First Avenue. The Marx Avenue house, the defendant‘s residence, was searched first. Defendant was present at the time. The police officers found a number of plastic bags containing marijuana between two mattresses in a bedroom, a pill bottle of marijuana on defendant‘s person, and $180.00 in one of the small drawers of a sewing machine. Also searched was an automobile parked in the yard. A plastic bag containing marijuana was found under the front seat.
After completing the search of the Marx Avenue residencе, the officers asked defendant to accompany them to the First Avenue residence, which was allegedly being rented by thе defendant. The defendant did so and, in fact, unlocked the door of the house to allow the police to enter. Upоn searching, the police discovered a brown paper sack containing 25 plastic bags of marijuana in the cаbinet under the sink; 5 plastic bags of marijuana in a closet; and a carton of cigarette papers.
All items were seizеd, and defendant was placed under arrest.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
During direct examination of Deputy Lannie Sigrest, the prosecutor asked him what he had found when searching defendant‘s car. Sigrest responded by stating that he “found a clear cellophane bag containing approximately one lid of marijuana.” Defense counsel objected to the statement on the ground that Sigrest had not been qualified to identify drugs and requested a mistrial. The trial judge sustained
On appeal, defendant urges that an admonition to the jury “was not sufficient to overcome the presumption that the jury concluded that what in fact was found was marijuana.”
Generally, a witness can testify as to facts within his knowledge but not as to any impression or opinion that he may have.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
During trial, the state sought to introduce into evidence eleven packets of marijuаna seized from defendant‘s two houses and automobile. Defendant objected on the ground that the evidence failed to show a proper chain of custody to permit its introduction. The objection was overruled, and the packets of mаrijuana were allowed into evidence.
The record discloses that Assistant Chief Hartzog labeled the evidence as it wаs found during the raid; that he turned it over to Sgt. Ewell at police headquarters, who placed the material in an evidence bag, sealed it and placed it in his evidence locker; that, after a couple of days, Sgt. Ewell gave the evidence tо Deputy Smith for transmittal to the state crime lab in Baton Rouge for a chemical analysis. Deputy Smith testified that he gave the evidence to Ronnie Jewell at the crime lab.
The only person to testify from the crime lab was Jerome C. Harrison, a criminologist, who actually tested the marijuana. He stated that he obtained the evidence from the crime lab‘s evidence room where it had been received on August 8, 1973. The attached receipt showed that the evidence had been recеived by Marta Finelet, who was no longer employed at the crime lab. Neither Jewell nor Finelet testified at trial.
While the pеrson who received the evidence at the crime lab did not testify, there was evidence that it had been received by Mаrta Finelet and other evidence that it had been delivered to Ronnie Jewell, who is employed at the crime lab as a ballistics expert. Despite the fact that there was no testimony from the person who received the evidence at the crime lab, the evidence taken as a whole was sufficient to establish a chain of custody to permit its introduction. For admission, it suffices if the custodial evidence establishes that it is more probable than not that the object is one connеcted with the case. The weight afforded to it is a factual matter for determination by the jury. State v. Freeman, 306 So.2d 703 (La.1975); State v. Flood, 301 So.2d 637 (La.1974); State v. Gladden, 260 La. 735, 257 So.2d 388 (1972); State v. Dotson, 260 La. 471, 256 So.2d 594 (1971). Hence, there is no merit to this assignment of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3
After the close of the state‘s case, defendant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal. The trial judge denied the motion, and defendant complains of this ruling in his Assignment of Error No. 3.
Defendant argues that the state failed “to prove its case” in that the marijuana was improperly аdmitted into evidence and there was no testimony at trial that defendant
Defendant‘s argument in regard to the admission into evidence of the marijuana is disposed of under Assignment of Error No. 2.
In regard to the failure of the state to prove intent, there was еvidence establishing that defendant possessed enough marijuana for 600 cigarettes. Intent to distribute could be inferred from this circumstance.
For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.