Court Opinion

ID: 9791327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:08:57.487618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:35.539085
License: Public Domain

TUCKETT, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. During the course of the defendant’s testimony the prosecutor cross-examined her concerning whether or not she was under the influence of drugs. The cross-examination was in substance as follows : Are you now under the influence of any drugs? The defendant responded, “Somewhat, yes.” The defendant further testified that she had taken two caps of heroin at 8:30 a.m. The court inquired, “Are you now under some influence from it?” The defendant’s answer was, “Well, somewhat. It’s mostly worn off. It’s not —it’s mostly gone out. I’m not high or anything from the effect of it.” It was proper to question the defendant as to her being under the influence as it went to her ability to remember and to relate the facts to which she was testifying. The state also called a police officer who testified that he had had two and one-half years experience in drug investigations, one of which was doing under-cover work. The officer also testified that he had been to a narcotics school, to a narcotics seminar and to the police school of narcotics investigations. Over the objection of the defense counsel, the officer was permitted to testify as to the effect a similar amount of heroin as was taken by the defendant would have upon a normal person. The officer also testified that one who was accustomed to taking two caps of heroin at 8:30 a.m. would be wanting more at approximately 4:00 p.m. He also testified that such a person would not be extremely high. There is nothing in the record to show that the defendant was a normal person nor is there anything to show the extent of the defendant’s addiction. There is nothing to show that the officer made any observations of the defendant during her testimony, nor is it shown that he had sufficient expertise to determine to what extent defendant was under the influence of the drug by a casual observation of the defendant in the courtroom or elsewhere. The officer’s testimony in this regard did not show nor tend to show guilt or innocence of the defendant, nor did it tend to contradict the defendant’s testimony. I am of the opinion that this testimony was unsupported by a proper foundation and that it was immaterial and in my opinion prejudicial. I would reverse and remand the case for a new trial.'
HENRIOD, J., concurs in the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of TUCKETT, J.