Court Opinion

ID: 9689233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:25:40.92585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:46.326331
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
The experience of Lackey with cocaine, when compared to the cases relied upon by the majority, is clearly insufficient. Lackey testified that she had not used cocaine or methamphetamine before she met the appellant. I believe the majority appropriately characterizes the testimony of Lackey. However, her broad general statements in contrasting the two drugs, that “nose candy” was “more mellow” than the substance referred to by the appellant as “crystal” and that “crystal” burned her nose very badly, while “nose candy” did not, seem hardly an adequate basis upon which to sustain a conviction. Instead, her testimony more closely resembles that found insufficient in People v. Kenny, 30 N.Y.2d 154, 282 N.E.2d 295, 331 N.Y.S.2d 392 (1972); Jenkins v. State, 46 Ala. App. 719, 248 So. 2d 758 (1971); People v. McLean, 56 Cal. 2d 660, 365 P.2d 403, 16 Cal. Rptr. 347 (1961); and State v. Hutton, 7 Wash. App. 726, 502 P.2d 1037 (1972).
Without either direct evidence of the chemical content of the *522substance or circumstantial evidence that the substance was cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt, this conviction cannot be sustained.