Court Opinion

ID: 9668925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:32:16.107219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:50.142376
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge
(dissenting).
The majority reverses this conviction because the prosecutor argued that it was a *221reasonable deduction from the evidence that there was enough marihuana found on the premises to make a man and wife high until 1990, and that it was more than they ever intended for their own personal use and that they were probably giving it away or selling it. After an objection was made the trial judge stated, “The jury will decide whether or not this deduction is reasonable. .” The prosecutor did not make the statement as a fact.
Officers had found 8.15 ounces of marihuana in a paper sack and .09 ounces in a little black box. If the deduction by the prosecutor was unreasonable, the jury properly would have weighed this against the State and not for it.
No reversible error has been shown; the judgment should be affirmed.
GUPTON, J., joins in this dissent.