Opinion ID: 235774
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: alleged errors in instructions to jury:

Text: 31 A. As to the trial court's instruction with respect to proof of the place the offense was committed, we find it unnecessary to pass upon this in view of what we have said on the subject of venue. 32 B. The trial court's refusal to charge the jury concerning the notice and demand for the order form, if erroneous, was harmless, because the evidence was uncontradicted that such reasonable notice and demand were in fact made by an authorized officer. Certainly it was not error to refuse defendants' requested charge, which was predicated on the erroneous premise that such notice and demand had to be made by a Collector of Internal Revenue, as if the departmental orders discussed above were of no effect. 33 C. This brings us to the defendants' final specification of error, the court's refusal to give the instruction requested by defendants quoting the statutory definition of marihuana, 26 U.S.C.A. 3238(b), 12 and instructing that the defendants should be found not guilty unless the jury found that the Government chemist made his analysis with due regard for the statutory exclusion of certain parts of the marihuana plant from the definition of marihuana. 34 The definition of marihuana in the statute is complicated and confusing. The court declined to permit unqualified witnesses to testify that the seized articles contained marihuana, thus correctly indicating that such a determination was one in which the jury needed the assistance of expert opinion. Unquestionably, therefore, the court should have given to the jury a definition of marihuana, even though the charge requested was, as to its second part, itself unclear. The chemist testified that he made both a chemical and microscopic test and found resin present. The fact that he also found present particles of the plant cannabis sativa that are excluded from the definition, did not prevent the jury from considering whether there was also present resin from the plant; for them to do this they needed an appropriate instruction from the court. 35 We have discussed the points raised on this appeal at some length because the case must go back for a new trial and the trial court is entitled to have such guidance as is available from our views on the points specifically raised. 36 The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.