Opinion ID: 1966817
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Marijuana Evidence

Text: [¶ 36.] The trial court admitted the marijuana evidence because the court concluded that it was probative of LaPlantes' knowledge of controlled drug use, presence, or sale in this home. The trial court noted that even though marijuana is not a controlled drug, the presence of marijuana made it more probable that other drugs might be present. The trial court stated: Clearly, if you find marijuana, which is one kind of drug, it is more likely you will find other kinds of drugs and the brief submitted by the defense itself states that where there were controlled substances, 51% of the time marijuana was also found .... Relevant evidence is like a brick in a house, [it is also] not a touchdown, but moving the ball forward a few yards. We agree. [¶ 37.] The evidence of marijuana possession, use, and sale in this home made it more probable, rather than less probable, that LaPlantes knew other drugs were also involved. LaPlantes' own statistical evidence demonstrated that more than half of the drug cases they referenced involve both marijuana and controlled substances. [6] We agree that the evidence of marijuana in the LaPlante home was simply one brick in a circumstantial case that made it more probable that LaPlantes had knowledge of controlled substance presence, use and sale. [¶ 38.] LaPlantes, however, contend that other courts have found marijuana evidence irrelevant. See State v. Larson, 512 N.W.2d 732 (S.D.1994), Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970), and Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969). LaPlantes' reliance on these cases is misplaced. Larson involved a murder where marijuana was obviously irrelevant to the charge. Larson, 512 N.W.2d at 737. Both Turner and Leary are inapposite because they involved statutory presumptions, rather than the evidentiary challenge of relevancy. Unlike Turner and Leary, the State made no claim here that marijuana presumptively established knowledge of controlled substances. Instead, the marijuana evidence was only used as one circumstantial brick to suggest it was more probable that LaPlantes had knowledge of controlled drug activity in the lower level of their home. The marijuana evidence was properly admitted.