Court Opinion

ID: 9748807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:13:41.148274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:39.625169
License: Public Domain

Allen, C.J.,
dissenting. I dissent because I conclude that misdemeanor possession of marijuana in this case is a lesser-included offense of felony possession, not a separate offense. A defendant is entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction “if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find him guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.” Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 208 (1973). Defendant’s theory, that he knew nothing of the drugs found in the rear of the car, raised a question of fact for the jury to resolve. The jury could rationally have believed defendant’s theory and found him guilty of misdemeanor possession while acquitting him of felony possession. I therefore cannot agree with the majority’s unsupported assertion that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense.
The majority concludes that defendant’s possession of the smaller amount of marijuana constituted a separate and distinct offense because separate evidence could have supported separate charges. However, this reasoning misapplies the test for determining a lesser included-offense. If “there is any reasonable theory from the evidence which would support [defendant’s] position,” then a trial court must instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense. Ex parte Kerr, 474 So. 2d 145, 146 (Ala. 1985) (it is reversible error not to instruct a jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession when defendant denies knowledge of the evidence supporting only the greater offense).
The State and defendant argue that the cause should be remanded and I would grant the request.
I am authorized to say that Justice Dooley joins with me in this dissent.