Court Opinion

ID: 9775065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:42:31.550257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:19.765204
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(Dissenting).
I have examined the record in this cause in the light of appellant’s motion for rehearing and am unable to agree with my brethren in their conclusion that the facts are sufficient to support the conviction.
The appellant was never seen in the possession of the illegal product for which he stands here convicted of possessing. The most that can be said of the state’s case is that he was seen near where it was later found. While it is true that appellant might have placed the marihuana in the wood pile, yet it is just as true that someone else might have placed it there. The land where it was found was not under the appellant’s control. Two Prince Albert tobacco cans were found, and yet it is significant to me that neither witness saw them in his hand, even though they were watching him.
I cannot bring myself to agree that such evidence meets the test in a circumstantial evidence case, and so respectfully enter my dissent.