Opinion ID: 2156537
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: [¶ 2] In the summer of 2002, Johnson was operating his motor vehicle over the posted speed limit when he was stopped by a police officer who then learned that Johnson was wanted on a Massachusetts arrest warrant. The officer placed Johnson and his female passenger in the cruiser. Two police officers then searched Johnson's vehicle, and they found and seized a plastic bag containing what they believed to be cocaine. Johnson was arrested and subsequently indicted. [¶ 3] The indictment alleged: On or about July 7, 2002, in Augusta, Kennebec County, Maine, ALPHONSO C. JOHNSON, did intentionally or knowingly traffick in what he knew or believed to be a scheduled drug, which was in fact crack cocaine, a schedule W drug. ALPHONSO C. JOHNSON was convicted of Sale of Controlled Drug on June 15, 1994, in the Rockingham County Superior Court, Rockingham County, New Hampshire, Docket No. 94-S-415, an offense relating to scheduled drugs and punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than one year. The indictment listed several statutes. It cited to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1103(1) (Supp.2001), [3] which read in pertinent part: A person is guilty of unlawful trafficking in a scheduled drug if the person intentionally or knowingly trafficks in what the person knows or believes to be a scheduled drug and that is in fact a scheduled drug. The indictment also cited to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1103(2)(A) (Supp.2001), [4] which stated that trafficking in a schedule W drug was a Class B offense. Finally, the indictment cited 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1105(1)(B) (Supp.2001), which stated that a prior conviction relating to scheduled drugs punishable by a term of imprisonment of a year or more elevated the Class B offense of trafficking to a Class A offense of aggravated trafficking. [¶ 4] A jury trial was held, lasting four days with several witnesses. The State called a chemist who had examined the substances in the plastic bag that the police seized from Johnson's vehicle. The chemist explained the tests and equipment that she uses to analyze substances. She explained that there are two forms of cocaine: (1) freebase or crack cocaine, and (2) cocaine hydrochloride. She performs three tests on substances that appear to be cocaine. Two of the three tests indicate whether a substance is cocaine, and the third test distinguishes between crack or freebase cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride. However, that test requires a crystallized sample. [¶ 5] The chemist testified that she examined the seized plastic bag and found that it contained 133 smaller baggies, which she separated by appearance and color into three groups. The first group contained eighty-nine small baggies containing a hard yellow powder and a cumulative weight of 14.9 grams. The second group consisted of thirty-six baggies containing a hard white powder and a cumulative weight of 31.4 grams. The third group contained eight bags of loose white powder, and the substance in those bags weighed 7.4 grams. The chemist performed the three tests on each group, and the substances in all three groups tested positive for cocaine. The first group also tested positive for crack or freebase cocaine, but the chemist was unable to obtain a sufficiently crystallized sample from the other two groups to test for the distinction between crack or freebase cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride. In summary, the chemist concluded that the bag seized from Johnson's vehicle contained 53.7 grams of cocaine, 14.9 of which were determined to be freebase or crack cocaine. [¶ 6] Midway through the trial, during a chambers conference at which the court and counsel were attending to housekeeping matters, the court raised a question about the wording of the indictment. The court questioned the use of the term crack cocaine, which appeared in the indictment but does not appear in the statutes. Subsequently, before the State rested, the prosecutor said: [T]he State would orally move to amend the indictment to properly reflect that crack cocaine is also crack cocaine or cocaine freebase and cocaine. The prosecutor gave as the basis for the motion that the amendment would conform the indictment to the evidence. The court then summarized the State's motion by stating, Crack cocaine comma, cocaine freebase and/or cocaine. [¶ 7] The defense objected to the motion, stating that it would have called its own expert and would have cross-examined the chemist differently had the indictment initially read as the State wanted to amend it. The prosecutor argued that because the defense had been furnished with the chemist's report prior to trial it was not surprised by the evidence. [¶ 8] The court granted the motion. The amended indictment was never reduced to writing, but we assume, as do the parties in their briefs, that the amended indictment charged Johnson with aggravated trafficking in crack cocaine, cocaine freebase and/or cocaine. [¶ 9] Among its jury instructions, which included a definition of possession, both actual and constructive, and a definition of trafficking, the court stated: Under Maine law a person is guilty of unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs if that person intentionally or knowingly trafficks in what he knows or believes to be a scheduled drug, which is in fact a scheduled drug. Now, some of the terms have specific legal definitions which I need to read to you. .... Scheduled drug means: A drug which State law has made illegal to possess, furnish or traffick. I instruct you that under Maine law cocaine and cocaine base or their derivatives are scheduled drugs. Cocaine means: A mixture or preparation that contains any quantity of cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric isomers and salts of isomers; or cocaine base, which is the alkaloid form of cocaine. .... Finally I instruct you that under Maine law if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally or knowingly possessed 14 grams or more of cocaine or 4 grams or more of cocaine in the form of cocaine base, you may, but are not required to, infer that the defendant trafficked in this drug. The jury returned a guilty verdict.