Opinion ID: 1104462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: 1291 (3) the trial court committed reversible error in allowing over objection, state witnesses to testify about the use and effects of phencyclidine and why phencyclidine is a schedule i controlled substance

Text: Larry Taplin, the undercover narcotics agent who purchased the phencyclidine, testified on redirect that if he had sniffed the phencyclidine he would get the effect of the drug; I would get high. Taplin's testimony was a followup on appellant's cross-examination in which she had asked if Taplin had sniffed or tasted the drug to determine what it was. The trial judge overruled appellant's objection and allowed Taplin to explain his action in not sniffing the drug. On direct examination Jim Miles of the Mississippi Crime Laboratory was allowed to testify as follows: Q. Do you know what schedule Phencyclidine is? A. Yes, sir, I believe it is a Schedule I controlled substance. Q. And what type substances are categorized as Scheduled I controlled substances? A. Schedule I controlled substances are drugs which have no proven medical value and that they also exhibit a high abuse potential. Q. All right, sir, could you categorize this drug as an upper or downer or a hallucinogenic? A. This Phencyclidine would be categorized as a hallucinogenic. Q. And would you explain what that is to the jury, please? A. A hallucinogenic would be described as a drug or substance which would produce hallucinations. Q. All right, sir. The record does not indicate that any objection was raised to this testimony. Consequently, any objection is deemed to have been waived and is not properly before this Court on appeal. In Burns v. State, 438 So.2d 1347 (Miss. 1983) the appellant argued that the court erred in allowing the State's expert from the Mississippi Crime Laboratory to testify as to the reason for marijuana being classed as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. The Court agreed and went on to say: The reason for the marijuana being classified as a Schedule I Controlled Substance by the legislature was not relevant on the question of the guilt or innocence of appellant. We hold that it was error to permit the testimony, but in this case it was harmless. However, in a close case on facts such testimony might be prejudicial and inflammatory, and the state should refrain from introducing such testimony. 438 So.2d 1351. In view of appellant's own testimony and the evidence presented by the State, this case cannot be considered as a close case on the facts. Even if this issue had been properly preserved for appeal it was harmless error.