Page 499 |
Previous | 499 of 832 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
N.C.App.1 SPRING SESSION 1973 475
State v. Clark
chemist testified that after he weighed the material, hIe looked
at all of it under the microscope closely, moving it around and
stirring it up, to get "an oivwall view." He was looking for
gross visual characteristics of marijuana. At that point he had
an opinion, b~ut made further tests, all of which confirmed
marijuana. He further testified that each bag contained more
than five gram. Defendant urges that this evidence is not
sufficient to carry the case to the jury nor to raise the presump-tion
of possession for distzibution created by G.S. 90-95(f) (3).
We are of the opinio~n that State v., Riera, 276 N.C. 361, 172
S.E. 2d 535 (1970), is adequate authority for the admission
of the results of the tests conduckd. G.S. 90-95 (f) (3) was
held to be coastitutio~nal in State v. Garcia, 16 N.C. App. 344,
347-348, 192 S.E. 2d 2 (1972), cert. denie~d 282 N.C. 427, 192
S.E. 2d 837 (1972), where Judge Brwk noted :
"The statutory provisions of which defendants complain
merely constitutes a rule of evidence for the establishment
of a prima facie case; it does not deprive defendants of
the presumption of their innocence nor relieve the State of
its burden to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The establishment of such a prima facie case will support,
but it does not compel, a finding of guilty. Clearly there
is a rakional connection between the fact proved (posses-sion
of more than five grams of marijuana) and the ulti-mate
fact to be established (possession of marijuana with
the intent to distribute). We hold the challenged provisions
of the statute to be constitutional."
See also State v. John Junior McDougald, 18 N.C. App. 407, 197
S.E. 2d 11 (l973).
Defendant had a fair and impartial trial free from preju-dicial
error.
No error.
Judges BROCKa nd PARKEcRon cur.
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.018, Spring Session 1973] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1973 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 18, Spring Session 1973. Cited as 18 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 36.8 MB; 832 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_018.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 499 |
| Full Text | N.C.App.1 SPRING SESSION 1973 475 State v. Clark chemist testified that after he weighed the material, hIe looked at all of it under the microscope closely, moving it around and stirring it up, to get "an oivwall view." He was looking for gross visual characteristics of marijuana. At that point he had an opinion, b~ut made further tests, all of which confirmed marijuana. He further testified that each bag contained more than five gram. Defendant urges that this evidence is not sufficient to carry the case to the jury nor to raise the presump-tion of possession for distzibution created by G.S. 90-95(f) (3). We are of the opinio~n that State v., Riera, 276 N.C. 361, 172 S.E. 2d 535 (1970), is adequate authority for the admission of the results of the tests conduckd. G.S. 90-95 (f) (3) was held to be coastitutio~nal in State v. Garcia, 16 N.C. App. 344, 347-348, 192 S.E. 2d 2 (1972), cert. denie~d 282 N.C. 427, 192 S.E. 2d 837 (1972), where Judge Brwk noted : "The statutory provisions of which defendants complain merely constitutes a rule of evidence for the establishment of a prima facie case; it does not deprive defendants of the presumption of their innocence nor relieve the State of its burden to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The establishment of such a prima facie case will support, but it does not compel, a finding of guilty. Clearly there is a rakional connection between the fact proved (posses-sion of more than five grams of marijuana) and the ulti-mate fact to be established (possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute). We hold the challenged provisions of the statute to be constitutional." See also State v. John Junior McDougald, 18 N.C. App. 407, 197 S.E. 2d 11 (l973). Defendant had a fair and impartial trial free from preju-dicial error. No error. Judges BROCKa nd PARKEcRon cur. |
