Title: State v. Gortarez
Citation: 393 P.2d 670, 96 Ariz. 206
Docket Number: 1278
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: June 24, 1964

96 Ariz. 206 (1964) 393 P.2d 670 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Johnny GORTAREZ, Appellant. No. 1278. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division. June 24, 1964. *207 Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., by David M. Lurie, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles N. Ronan, Maricopa County Atty., for appellee. Duane W. Bolze, Phoenix, for appellant. BERNSTEIN, Justice. Defendant was charged with two counts of possession of marijuana and two counts of the sale of marijuana. The counts pertaining to the possession of marijuana were quashed and defendant was convicted on the two counts pertaining to sales. Defendant was sentenced to from 5 to 7 years on each count with the sentences to run concurrently. Defendant contends (1) that testimony introduced at the trial that he had smoked marijuana was prejudicial, (2) that evidence of possession of marijuana, a crime different than that charged, was improperly admitted, (3) that the prosecution was improperly allowed to amend the information to change the date on which one of the crimes was allegedly committed. The defendant's contentions will be considered in the order heretofore set forth. On redirect examination by the prosecutor of a witness for the state the following took place: Defendant then made a motion the nature of which does not appear from the transcript but which he contends in his brief was a motion for a mistrial. This motion was taken under advisement and not ruled upon. Evidence of smoking marijuana is so prejudicial in a case where the charge is for the sale of marijuana that the case must be reversed unless there is a showing that it comes within one of the recognized exceptions to the proof of other crimes. State v. Little, 87 Ariz. 295, 350 P.2d 756, 86 A.L.R.2d 1120. One admission of using narcotics is sufficient to require a reversal, Helton v. U.S., 5 Cir., 221 F.2d 338. The state argues, however, that the admonition of the trial judge and a general charge that the verdict was to be governed solely by *208 evidence introduced and the law as stated by the court is sufficient to cure the error. In State v. Kellington, 93 Ariz. 396, 398, 381 P.2d 215, 216, where there had been testimony of a prior conviction not introduced for purposes of impeachment we said: State v. Byrd, 62 Ariz. 24, 29, 152 P.2d 669, 671, was a case in which the prosecutor had asked a state's witness a question an affirmative answer to which would have shown a different offense than that which the defendant was charged. We said: And in Helton v. U.S., 5 Cir., 221 F.2d 338, 340-341: While what we have said requires that the case be sent back for a new trial we discuss defendant's other contentions for the guidance of the trial court. At one point in response to a question by defense counsel the state's principal witness, a narcotics agent, testified: The inadmissible testimony given by the narcotics agent was called for by the questions of defense. Defense counsel opened the door as to this testimony. See also Riley v. State, 50 Ariz. 442, 73 P.2d 96. Appellant complains of other instances in which there was testimony as to his possession of marijuana. It appears that the testimony as to possession had to do with his having marijuana available to sell immediately prior to the sale, and in fact did sell the marijuana in his possession. It was these sales with which he was charged. We think it would be difficult to prove the sale of marijuana without showing that the defendant had marijuana in his possession to sell at the time of sale. Appellant's contention that the prosecution was improperly allowed to amend the information need not be discussed as the case must be retried and thus the question no longer exists. Reversed and remanded for a new trial. UDALL, C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, J., concurring.