Court Opinion

ID: 9715712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:12:39.60044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:37.428479
License: Public Domain

. McCown, J.,
concurring in result.
The holding of the majority opinion places undue emphasis upon the amount of marijuana involved here by using the term “large quantity” in referring to less than one pound of marijuana. The Legislature has already made one pound of marijuana the dividing line between minimal and serious offenses where possession alone is involved. See § 28-4,125, R. S. Supp., 1972. In view of the statutory distinctions, less than one pound *623of marijuana in the joint possession of two individual users can hardly be classified as a “large quantity.” Particularly is this so where the record indicates that the marijuana here was in a form in which it may commonly be possessed either for distribution or use.
Nevertheless, in this case there was substantial evidence other than mere quantity on the issue of possession with intent to distribute. For that crime, even a fraction of an ounce is sufficient. Here, in addition to the packaged marijuana which was found concealed in two locations in the house, the officers also found a quantity of marijuana stems in a wastebasket. They also testified that they found a quantity of plastic bags of the kind used for packaging marijuana. Although ■perhaps marginal, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for possession with intent to distribute.