Court Opinion

ID: 9767292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:16:01.493655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:30.192014
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S motion for rehearing
WOODLEY, Judge.
We remain convinced that the finding of the marijuana in the attic of the premises occupied and controlled by appellant, in a place cleaned and prepared for storage by the removal of insulation and dust found in other parts of the attic, constitutes direct evidence of the possession of marijuana.
Appellant urges that the trial court erred in failing to submit in his charge to the jury appellant’s affirmative defense that the marijuana was placed in the cafe without his consent, and that he had no knowledge of its being there.
The trial court instructed the jury in part as follows:
“Even though you may find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did possess marijuana, you are nevertheless instructed that unless you also find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the said defendant knowingly possessed said marijuana, if he did so possess it, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, then you will acquit the defendant and say by your verdict, ‘not guilty’.”
The only objection to this part of the charge was that the law of reasonable doubt was not properly applied. However, appellant did object because the court failed to instruct the jury *11to acquit appellant if they found or had a reasonable doubt that the marijuana was placed “in the La Pasada Cafe” without appellant’s consent.
We stated in our original opinion that the defensive theory was that someone had, on the night in question, thrown the can containing marijuana into the ceiling.
Appellant did not object to the charge because the defense raised was not applied to the facts as shown by the evidence, but contends now that the objection made was sufficient to direct the trial court’s attention to the omission.
With this contention we cannot agree. Appellant’s true defense was a lack of knowledge that the marijuana was. stored in his attic. Whether placed there by appellant in person or by some other person acting for him, is not controlling. Nor would it avail appellant to show that the marijuana was placed in the attic without his consent if he had knowledge of its presence and permitted it to remain there under the protection of his control of the premises.
The trial court in the above quoted instructions, submitted to the jury the defense of lack of knowledge, and the only objection levelled thereat is without merit. If appellant was dissatisfied with the charge as given and desired that the trial court elaborate on his defensive theory, he should have called attention to such dissatisfaction by a specific objection as required by Art. 658, C.C.P.
The appeal having been properly disposed of on original submission, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.