Opinion ID: 554054
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Oh yeah, I guess it looked suspicious, it was for my own protection.

Text: 131 Q. Protection to put a hood over your head? 132 A. Yes. 133 Q. Whose protection? 134 A. Mr. Malcolm Jowers could be individual owned that patch, and he could act like he's police too, but if it wasn't, like I said, he could just come out and blowed my brains away. On the same subject Mooneyham testified: 135 Q. Was it just coincidence when you decided on July 31st, 1988, just coincidence when Mr. Morrow showed up, you were going to take this trip to the marijuana patch, and just coincidence you had two masks then? 136 A. No coincidence. I had two masks with them, I took them in on purpose because I had in mind what I was going to do. 137 Q. What was purpose of putting mask over your head? 138 A. Lot of people lays with their marijuana, and if, in fact, someone was there, and they knew who it was, I feared for my safety, my family's safety. 139 Q. Wouldn't you sit in the patch, surveil it for a while, see if anybody's there, rather than walking from four-wheelers down to patch with your mask on? 140 A. Been several different, if anyone had been there, and it had been safe, different, if they wanted to shoot me, they would have, or do whatever. 141 Morrow's image, as developed by the record, was that of an individual who was versed in the agriculture, harvesting, and trafficking of marijuana. He admittedly had incorporated his knowledge on the subject into a high school book report. Both defendants were keenly aware of the use of firearms as a means of safeguarding and facilitating illegal drug transactions and as an integral tool for protecting persons and drugs from competition or poachers. Mooneyham's holstered, chrome-plated revolver had been clearly visible from the time when the two men, in the presence of each other, donned their camouflaged clothing until they were arrested. To conclude that Morrow's course of conduct and overt activities on the morning of Sunday July 31, 1988 did not demonstrate an affirmative participation  designed to aid and abet in the success of the substantive or underlying offense of manufacturing marijuana is to ignore the evidence and the reasonable inferences arising therefrom. 142 The brief recital of the factual history of this case exposes my reasons for dissenting. In the instant case, Morrow was, from the outset, acting in concert with Mooneyham. Each defendant was a principal who aided and abetted the other in a joint venture with a common design. Each was intimately involved with the physical execution of all acts necessary to ensure the ultimate success of the underlying substantive offense of manufacturing marijuana, which included, as an integral means of protecting their drugs and facilitating their illegal operation, the carrying of firearms. 143 Accordingly, I would, without hesitation, enter my dissent to the majority's vacation of the jury's verdict convicting Timothy Wayne Morrow of Count III of the indictment and affirm the jury's verdict. 144 I would, therefore dissent from the part of the panel majority's opinion that vacates the jury verdict convicting both Mooneyham and Morrow of Count III of the indictment, and concur in the balance of the majority opinion. In sum, I would affirm the jury verdict and the trial court's judgment thereon in its entirety.