Court Opinion

ID: 9551165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:48:38.398745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:12.353347
License: Public Domain

RABINO WITZ, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
For the reasons discussed in my separate opinion in Judd v. State, 482 P.2d 773, 280-283 (Alaska 1971) I conclude that appellant should be granted a new trial. The crux of my disagreement with the court’s opinion is the holding that in the case at bar the prosecution did not have to prove appellant knowingly possessed a useable quantity of a prohibited drug. In my view the prosecution had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, under the statute in question, that appellant knowingly possessed a useable quantity of the prohibited drug.1

. I agree that it is not essential for conviction that the prosecution prove that the accused was found in knowing possession of a useable quantity of the prohibited drug. What is necessary is proof of a sufficient quantity of the prohibited drug to permit proper identification and other evidence which permits the jury to find that the accused knowingly possessed a useable quantity of the prohibited drug.