Court Opinion

ID: 9511477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:04:54.341953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:02.645020
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE NELSON
concurs.
¶40 I concur in our Opinion with one caveat.
¶41 Here, the two untested bindles were largely irrelevant as to the distribution charges. Distributing one bindle accomplished the same result as distributing three. That said, I suggest that it suspends the laws of human nature to expect that jurors, presented with three similar bindles, only one of which was tested, will not speculate that the other two contain dangerous drugs as well-an instruction to the contrary notwithstanding. Any error in admitting the untested bindles here, however, was harmless.
¶42 My concern is that the rationale of this case not be applied in cases where the charges involve a certain quantity or certain quality of a dangerous drug. For example, under §45-9-102, MCA, possessing more than a certain quantity of marijuana or hashish (§45-9-102(2), MCA) can turn a misdemeanor into a felony (§45-9-102(5), MCA). In those cases, I would require the State to actually test each unit of drug that will be used to prove the more serious charge. In those cases, use of the untested units of drugs may well prejudicially affect the outcome of the case.
¶43 With that caveat, I concur.