Court Opinion

ID: 9779518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 22:05:02.255521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:27.362845
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I write primarily to call attention to the unfairness with which I believe this court sometimes handles appeals. Many times we refuse to consider an argument because the appellant did not abstract a particular pleading or portion of the trial. On the other hand, we frequently look to the record in order to affirm even though the relevant portion of the record has not been abstracted by the appellee. A good example of this legal inequity is found in the majority opinion where it states: “We find the appellant’s failure to include the closing argument in his abstract of the record leaves us unable to deal with this issue.” Then, disposing of another point, the majority states: “But earlier in the closing argument, the prosecutor said the following: . . . .” This last remark leads to my other point of disagreement with the majority. During closing argument the state’s attorney commented on a newspaper (which had not been introduced) taken from a packing box containing a flask which was introduced into evidence. The introduction of this particular evidence was as follows: STATE: State’s exhibit 12, do you recognize those as items in the shed? WITNESS: Yes, sir, they were in the shed also. WITNESS: Here is the glass beaker. STATE: With the yellow — WITNESS: Tab on it. STATE: Okay as shown in state’s exhibit — WITNESS: Yes, sir. STATE: And that flask with the yellow beaker, yellow tab on it, is state’s exhibit No. 48. STATE: We would offer to introduce state’s exhibit No. 47 A and B and state’s exhibit No. 48. THE COURT: The boxes with contents labeled 47 A and B for the state are both admitted. Objection noted. And the other one is 48. STATE: Yes, sir. THE COURT: What is in box 48? Is that what was referred to as the Erlenmeyer flask? STATE: Your Honor, I think that is correct. It is obvious that the only object introduced as exhibit 48 was the flask with the yellow tab on it. It happened that this particular newspaper was in the box containing the flask. The comment by the prosecutor was most likely not prejudicial to the appellant, but the newspaper was never introduced into evidence, and it was improper to allow the state’s attorney to comment on it. Had it been offered into evidence, the defense counsel may have had valid questions concerning the newspaper. Finally, I do not think the evidence supported this conviction for possession of a controlled substance. The material which they had on hand was in the process of being manufactured. The substance was still in a state which could not have been used for human consumption. Obviously, it could not have been sold in its existing state and therefore there could not have been any intent to sell it. I believe the charge should be reduced to an attempt to manufacture a controlled substance.