Opinion ID: 1308078
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the controlled substance

Text: The appellant also contends that the trial court erred in permitting Sgt. White to testify that the substance he examined was marijuana, and to state its weight. Appellant maintains that the chemical reagents used to identify the controlled substance were not themselves independently tested to assure their identity and purity, and that the State's reliance upon hearsay (labels) to identify them violated his right to due process and to confront his accusers. He also claims that Sgt. White should not have been permitted to state how much marijuana he received, because the scales used to weigh it had not been tested, and he was unable to distinguish the stems and stalks from the portion of the plant that is illegal to possess. These contentions are without merit. In State v. Hood, 155 W.Va. 337, 184 S.E.2d 334 (1971), we said the following foundation must be laid before test results are admissible: (1) That the testing device or equipment was in proper working order; (2) that the person giving and interpreting the test was properly qualified; (3) that the test was properly conducted; and (4) that there was compliance with any statutory requirements. 155 W.Va. at 342, 184 S.E.2d at 337. See also State v. Dyer, W.Va., 233 S.E.2d 309, 310 (1977); State v. Parks, W.Va., 243 S.E.2d 848, 851 (1978). The record in this case shows that a careful and proper foundation was laid for the admission of White's opinion, and that the trial court correctly permitted him to testify that the substance was marijuana. Appellant's various arguments about the weight of the substance are inapposite. The indictment charged that appellant: did unlawfully and feloniously deliver unto one T.L. Kirk a controlled substance classified in Schedule I, said controlled substance being a material, compound, mixture and preparation containing a quantity of marijuana.... Since appellant was merely charged with delivery of a quantity of marijuana, the actual amount sold to Kirk is not material to his conviction under the indictment, [3] and he could not have been prejudiced by this testimony. His remaining attacks on the expert testimony are groundless.