Opinion ID: 1961155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Possession of Controlled Paraphernalia

Text: ... TERRY HUGH THOMPSON, on or about April 27, 2000, in Montgomery County, Maryland, unlawfully did possess controlled paraphernalia in sufficient quantity to and under circumstances which reasonably indicate an intention to use such items for the illegal distribution and dispensing of a controlled dangerous substance, to wit: a digital scale, glassine baggies, Philly blunt cigars, rolling papers, and a wooden pipe, in violation of Article 27, Section 287A of the Annotated Code of Maryland, contrary to the form of the Act of Assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace, government and dignity of the State. (Possession of Controlled Paraphernalia, Article 27, Section 287A) In addition, Section 287(d)(2)'s category of glassine envelopes or any other container suitable for the packaging of individual quantities of controlled dangerous substances for the illegal ... distribution could include items listed on the IndictmentPhilly Blunt cigars, rolling papers, and glassine baggies. The next focus of our analysis must be whether the body of the Second Count was sufficient to charge any crime, because in Gray v. State, 216 Md. 410, 416, 140 A.2d 643, 646 (1958), we found that an insufficiency in the language of a charge could give rise to a circumstance in which a statutory reference supplied a necessary element of the characterization of an offense charged. There, we found that a caption, ordinarily amendable without altering the character of an offense, became a necessary part of the charging document because it served to clarify an otherwise insufficiently described charge. [15] Id. In the present case, however, we find that the Indictment is sufficient without the statutory citation in that it provides notice to Thompson that he is being charged with possession of controlled paraphernalia with intent to distribute in violation of Section 287(d)(2). Thompson also argues that the language of the Indictment is a combination of the wording of both Section 287A and Section 287(d)(2), and, thus, the statutory reference is a necessary indicator of which section is charged. An examination of both Sections 287A and 287(d)(2) shows that possession of the paraphernalia listed in the Second Count, specifically the scale, glassine baggies, Philly Blunt cigars, and rolling papers, conceivably could fit either section. [16] This commonality, however, does not create any ambiguity regarding which statute had been charged. [17] It is the intent with which one possesses such paraphernalia that determines which section is charged. The gravamen of Section 287(d)(2) is possession of controlled paraphernalia with the intention of distributing or dispensing. Code, Art. 27, Section 287(d)(2). The caption used for Section 287(d), distribution of controlled paraphernalia, reinforces this statute's clear purpose. In contrast, the gravamen of Section 287A is specifically that of possessing a drug paraphernalia with the intention to use it in ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing a controlled dangerous substance into the human body. Code, Art. 27, Section 287A. The possession for personal use is clearly indicated by the statute's language. In the Second Count of the Indictment, the language of the alleged act and character of the charge is extrapolated directly from Section 287(d)(2)possess controlled paraphernalia in sufficient quantity to and under circumstances which reasonably indicate an intention to use such items for the illegal distribution and dispensing of a controlled dangerous substance. Therefore, the character of the offense charged was clearly that of Section 287(d)(2). This situation differs from that in Johnson, in which the State sought to substitute the word cocaine for the word marijuana in a charging document. Johnson, 358 Md. at 387, 749 A.2d at 770. Such an amendment would have altered what the basic offense was and triggered a more severe penalty for a charge involving cocaine rather than marijuana. [18] Id. at 391, 749 A.2d. at 772-73. In this case, the amendment of the statutory citation does not alter the character of the offense; the Indictment sufficiently charges a violation of Section 287(d)(2). It is not the statutory reference that triggers the possible penalty but, rather, the character of the offense alleged. Therefore, no prejudicial error occurred in the trial court's allowance of the amendment at the first trial. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY AND TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION; COSTS IN THIS COURT AND THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY MONTGOMERY COUNTY. Chief Judge BELL and Judge CATHELL concur in the result and in Part II.A of the opinion.