Emmett Grady Wallace, alias v. State of Alabama
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rel:
02/15/2013
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance
s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s ,
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s ,
300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1
((334)
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made
b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013
CR-10-1464
Emmett Grady Wallace
v.
S t a t e o f Alabama
Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t
(CC-10-1706)
Court
On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g
PER CURIAM.
The o p i n i o n i s s u e d on June 29, 2 0 1 2 , i s h e r e b y w i t h d r a w n ,
and
the following opinion i s s u b s t i t u t e d therefor.
CR-10-1464
The
a p p e l l a n t , Emmett G r a d y
Wallace,
was
c o n v i c t e d of
the c h e m i c a l endangerment of a c h i l d , a v i o l a t i o n
3.2(A),
A l a . Code
1975,
and
the
o f § 26-15-
u n l a w f u l manufacture
of
c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e , i . e . , methamphetamine, a v i o l a t i o n
13A-12-218, A l a . Code 1975.
imprisonment
on e a c h
concurrently.
He
conviction,
a
of §
was
sentenced
to
10
years'
the
sentences
t o be
served
This appeal followed.
I.
Wallace
first
sufficient
argues
evidence
to
methamphetamine b e c a u s e ,
s u b s t a n c e was
t h a t the
convict
State
him
failed
of
to
present
manufacturing
he s a y s , i t f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t t h e
i n f a c t methamphetamine o r t h a t he p o s s e s s e d
any
p r e c u r s o r c h e m i c a l as t h a t t e r m i s d e f i n e d i n § 20-2-181, A l a .
Code
1975.
Specifically,
he
argues
that
the
evidence
was
i n s u f f i c i e n t because the S t a t e f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t the testimony
of
a
forensic
or
s c i e n t i f i c expert
methamphetamine o r t h a t he p o s s e s s e d
At
the
c l o s e of
judgment of a c q u i t t a l
you
made meth, you
t h a t meth was
t h a t the
substance
was
a precursor chemical.
the S t a t e ' s case,
Wallace
moved f o r a
and a r g u e d : " I n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t
have t o have a s c i e n t i f i c d e t e r m i n a t i o n
p r e s e n t a t t h a t p l a c e o r on
2
these
substances.
CR-10-1464
That r e q u i r e s the Department of F o r e n s i c S c i e n c e s
test
or
some
other
presence of meth."
motion.
(R.
scientific
(R.
292.)
agency
The
to
circuit
t o do
determine
court
denied
some
[the]
the
299.)
S e c t i o n 13A-12-218, A l a . Code 1975,
provides,
in relevant
part:
"(a) A
manufacture
d e g r e e i f he
two o r more
conjunction
p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f
unlawful
of a c o n t r o l l e d substance i n the f i r s t
o r she v i o l a t e s S e c t i o n 13A-12-217 and
of the f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s o c c u r r e d i n
with that v i o l a t i o n :
"
" ( 4 ) A c l a n d e s t i n e l a b o r a t o r y o p e r a t i o n was t o
t a k e p l a c e o r d i d t a k e p l a c e w i t h i n 500 f e e t o f a
r e s i d e n c e , p l a c e of b u s i n e s s , church, or s c h o o l .
"(6) A c l a n d e s t i n e l a b o r a t o r y o p e r a t i o n was f o r
the p r o d u c t i o n of c o n t r o l l e d substances l i s t e d i n
Schedule I or Schedule I I .
"(7) A p e r s o n u n d e r t h e age o f
d u r i n g the m a n u f a c t u r i n g p r o c e s s . "
Section
13A-12-217,
Ala.
Code
17
1975,
was
present
provides,
pertinent part:
"(a) A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f
unlawful
manufacture of a c o n t r o l l e d substance i n the second
d e g r e e i f , e x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e a u t h o r i z e d i n s t a t e
o r f e d e r a l l a w , he o r she does any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g :
3
in
CR-10-1464
"(1)
Manufactures
a
controlled
substance
enumerated i n Schedule I t o V, i n c l u s i v e .
"(2)
Possesses
precursor
substances
as
d e t e r m i n e d i n S e c t i o n 2 0 - 2 - 1 8 1 , i n any amount w i t h
the i n t e n t t o u n l a w f u l l y manufacture a c o n t r o l l e d
substance."
S e c t i o n 2 0 - 2 - 1 8 1 ( d ) , A l a . Code 1975, a d d r e s s e s p r e c u r s o r
c h e m i c a l s and s t a t e s :
" U n t i l t h e B o a r d o f Pharmacy adopts a r u l e
d e s i g n a t i n g l i s t e d p r e c u r s o r c h e m i c a l s , as r e q u i r e d
by
subsection (a), the f o l l o w i n g
chemicals or
substances
are hereby
deemed
listed
precursor
chemicals:
"(1) A c e t i c
anhydride;
"(2) A n t h r a n i l i c a c i d a n d i t s s a l t s ;
"(3) B e n z y l c y a n i d e ;
"(4) E p h e d r i n e , i t s s a l t s , o p t i c a l i s o m e r s , and
s a l t s of o p t i c a l isomers;
"(5) E r g o n o v i n e a n d i t s s a l t s ;
"(6) E r g o t a m i n e
and i t s s a l t s ;
"(7) H y d r i o d i c a c i d ;
"(8)
Isosafrol;
"(9)
Methylamine;
"(10) N - A c e t y l a n t h r a n i l i c a c i d a n d i t s s a l t s ;
"(11) N o r p s e u d o e p h e d r i n e ,
i t s salts,
i s o m e r s , and s a l t s o f o p t i c a l i s o m e r s ;
4
optical
CR-10-1464
"(12)
P h e n y l a c e t i c a c i d and i t s s a l t s ;
"(13) P h e n y l p r o p a n o l a m i n e , i t s s a l t s ,
isomers, and s a l t s o f o p t i c a l isomers;
"(14)
optical
P i p e r i d i n e and i t s s a l t s ;
"(15)
Pseudoephedrine,
isomers, and s a l t s o f o p t i c a l
i t s salts,
isomers;
optical
"(16)
S a f r o l e ; and
"(17)
3,4-Methylenedioxyphenyl-2-propanone."
The i n d i c t m e n t
charged Wallace
as f o l l o w s :
"Emmett G r a d y W a l l a c e ... whose name i s o t h e r w i s e
unknown t o t h e G r a n d J u r y , d i d k n o w i n g l y m a n u f a c t u r e
a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e i n S c h e d u l e s I t o V, t o - w i t :
METHAMPHETAMINE,
and/or
possess
precursor
substances,
i n a n y amount, w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o
u n l a w f u l l y m a n u f a c t u r e a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e , as
d e t e r m i n e d i n S e c t i o n 20-2-181 o f t h e Code o f
A l a b a m a 1975, a n d i n c o n j u n c t i o n t h e r e w i t h , d i d a l s o
e s t a b l i s h a c l a n d e s t i n e l a b o r a t o r y operation which
was t o t a k e p l a c e o r d i d t a k e p l a c e w i t h i n 500 f e e t
of a r e s i d e n c e , p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s ,
church, or
s c h o o l , t o - w i t : a r e s i d e n c e ; and/or e s t a b l i s h e d a
clandestine laboratory operation f o r the production
o f c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s , t o - w i t : METHAMPHETAMINE;
a n d / o r a p e r s o n u n d e r t h e age o f 17, [ E . T . ] was
present
during
the manufacturing
process,
in
v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 13A-12-218 o f t h e Code o f
Alabama, a g a i n s t t h e peace and d i g n i t y o f t h e S t a t e
of Alabama."
When r e v i e w i n g w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e h a s p r e s e n t e d
evidence
to
support
a
conviction,
following:
5
we
keep
sufficient
i n mind
the
CR-10-1464
" [ T ] h e e v i d e n c e must be r e v i e w e d i n t h e l i g h t most
f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . Cumbo v. S t a t e , 368
So. 2d 871 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 7 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 368
So.
2d 877
( A l a . 1979).
C o n f l i c t i n g evidence
p r e s e n t s a j u r y q u e s t i o n n o t s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w on
appeal, provided the state's evidence e s t a b l i s h e s a
p r i m a f a c i e c a s e . Gunn v. S t a t e , 387 So. 2 d 280
( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 387 So. 2d 283 ( A l a .
1 9 8 0 ) . The t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f o r a
judgment
of
acquittal
must
be
reviewed
by
determining
whether there e x i s t e d l e g a l evidence
b e f o r e t h e j u r y , a t t h e t i m e t h e m o t i o n was made,
f r o m w h i c h t h e j u r y b y f a i r i n f e r e n c e c o u l d have
f o u n d t h e a p p e l l a n t g u i l t y . Thomas v . S t a t e , 363 So.
2d 1020 ( A l a . C r . App. 1978) . I n a p p l y i n g
this
standard, the a p p e l l a t e court w i l l determine only i f
l e g a l e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d f r o m w h i c h t h e j u r y
c o u l d have f o u n d t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y b e y o n d a
r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . W i l l i s v. S t a t e , 447 So. 2d 199
(Ala.
C r . App. 1 9 8 3 ) ; Thomas v . S t a t e . When t h e
evidence r a i s e s q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t f o r t h e j u r y and
such evidence, i f b e l i e v e d , i s s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n
a c o n v i c t i o n , t h e d e n i a l o f a motion f o r a judgment
o f a c q u i t t a l b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t does n o t c o n s t i t u t e
e r r o r . Young v. S t a t e , 283 A l a . 676, 220 So. 2d 843
( 1 9 6 9 ) ; W i l l i s v. S t a t e . A v e r d i c t o f c o n v i c t i o n
w i l l n o t be s e t a s i d e on t h e g r o u n d o f i n s u f f i c i e n c y
of t h e e v i d e n c e u n l e s s ,
allowing a l l reasonable
presumptions f o r i t s c o r r e c t n e s s , the preponderance
o f t h e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t t h e v e r d i c t i s s o d e c i d e d as
t o c l e a r l y c o n v i n c e t h i s c o u r t t h a t i t was wrong a n d
u n j u s t . Duncan v. S t a t e , 436 So. 2d 883 ( A l a . C r .
App. 1 9 8 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 464 U.S. 1047, 104 S . C t .
720, 79 L.Ed.2d 182 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 378
So. 2 d 1164 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . q u a s h e d , 378
So.2d 1173 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . "
B r e c k e n r i d g e v. S t a t e ,
App.
628 So. 2d 1012, 1018-19
1993).
6
(Ala.
Crim.
CR-10-1464
"'Circumstantial
evidence
is
not
i n f e r i o r e v i d e n c e , and i t w i l l be g i v e n t h e
same w e i g h t as d i r e c t e v i d e n c e , i f i t ,
along
with
the
other
evidence,
is
susceptible
of
a
reasonable
inference
p o i n t i n g u n e q u i v o c a l l y to the defendant's
g u i l t . Ward v. S t a t e , 557 So. 2d 848 ( A l a .
C r . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . I n r e v i e w i n g a c o n v i c t i o n
b a s e d i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t on c i r c u m s t a n t i a l
e v i d e n c e , t h e t e s t t o be a p p l i e d i s w h e t h e r
the j u r y might reasonably f i n d t h a t the
evidence
excluded
every
reasonable
hypothesis
except
that
of
guilt;
not
whether
such
evidence
excludes
every
reasonable
hypothesis
but
guilt,
but
whether
a
jury
might
reasonably
so
c o n c l u d e . Cumbo v. S t a t e , 368 So. 2d 871
( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 7 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 368 So.
2d 877 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . ' "
L o c k h a r t v. S t a t e , 715 So. 2d 895,
q u o t i n g Ward v.
App.
State's
Officer
Department
property
was
from
Montgomery.
C.J.
So.
2d
( A l a . C r i m . App.
1190,
1191-92
1997),
( A l a . Crim.
1992).
The
2010,
S t a t e , 610
899
tended
Christopher
theft
to
Owenby
investigating
the
had
a
of
theft
been
show
and
Police
Sgt.
J.L.
when
pawned
Walker,
Department,
to
7
that
the
O f f i c e r Owenby o b t a i n e d t h e
Coughlin
Montgomery
evidence
on
June
Eclectic
he
at
Police
learned
a
30,
that
pawnshop
in
a s s i s t a n c e of
Sgt.
detectives with
the
investigate
the
name
and
CR-10-1464
a d d r e s s on
by M.T.
t h e pawn t i c k e t .
and
The
and
a p p r o a c h e d an
h o u s e was
no
longer
Sgt.
M.T.
i n the
house,
officers
Coughlin
box,
a d u f f e l bag,
drink
bottle
s u b s t a n c e , he
with
she
to search
testified
he s a i d , had
and
t h a t he
s a i d was
gave
the
fluid
s a i d , was
and
bubbling,
and
o r a l and
written
residence.
f o u n d a box
her
strips
in a
and
I n s i d e the
was
a
in
i t .
Sgt. C o u g h l i n
t e s t i f i e d , he
protocol,
cleared
house,
called
division.
Sgt.
Coughlin
further t e s t i f i e d
the
that
box
plastic
The
he b e l i e v e d t h a t i t
At that time,
and
closet
Wallace.
hazardous.
the
door.
property
d u f f e l bag
metal
the
stolen
o c c u p i e d by
i n s i d e the
at
M.T.'s s i x - y e a r
smoke e m a n a t i n g f r o m i t .
and
house
t o answer t h e
and
1
arrived
standing
t o l d p o l i c e t h a t the
i n a bedroom t h a t M.T.
was
officers
open window. W a l l a c e was
o c c u p i e d by W a l l a c e , M.T.,
consent f o r the
The
t h a t when t h e
O f f i c e r Owenby a s k e d him
o l d d a u g h t e r , E.T.
was
signed
Plum S t r e e t a d d r e s s , he went t o t h e b a c k o f t h e
open window and
The
been
l i s t e d a Plum S t r e e t a d d r e s s i n M o n t g o m e r y .
O f f i c e r Owenby t e s t i f i e d
at the
pawn t i c k e t had
was
followed
narcotics
there
was
a
To p r o t e c t t h e a n o n y m i t y o f t h e c h i l d v i c t i m i n t h i s
c a s e , we a r e u s i n g i n i t i a l s f o r t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r and c h i l d .
See R u l e 52, A l a . R. App.
P.
1
8
CR-10-1464
thick
white
s m e l l and
smoke t h r o u g h o u t
t h a t t h e c h i l d , E.T.,
D e t e c t i v e W.T.
testified
walking
had
at that
residence
said that Wallace f i r s t
later
Detective
chemical
around the
house.
called
for five
M.T.
Benjamin
his
M.T.,
years;
Schlemmer,
Wallace
l i v e d i n the
a narcotics
that
told
house.
officer
t h e Montgomery P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was
he
Grant
as h i s w i f e and
E.T.,
to
that
Detective
girlfriend.
and
i n regard
W a l l a c e t o l d him
r e f e r r e d t o M.T.
G r a n t t h a t he,
Detective
a
G r a n t o f t h e Montgomery P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t
happened a t Plum S t r e e t .
lived
Wallace
was
house t h a t
t h a t W a l l a c e made a s t a t e m e n t t o him
what had
had
the
with
called
t o t h e h o u s e on Plum S t r e e t b e c a u s e o f f i c e r s on s i t e
suspected
that
Detective
they
had
Schlemmer
discovered
testified
the
to
a
portable
the
meth
extent
f i n i s h e d product
of
lab.
his
identifying
"both
of
once i t had
a c t u a l l y b e e n m a n u f a c t u r e d and
training
in
methamphetamines
t h e n a l s o how
to
i d e n t i f y the m a n u f a c t u r i n g p r o c e s s of methamphetamine."
(R.
232.)
the
He
had
manufacture
said
jar
that
o v e r 150
hours of t r a i n i n g t h a t focused
of
narcotics,
coffee
filters,
specifically
tubing,
on
methamphetamine.
He
a f u n n e l , butane,
a mason
w i t h a c l e a r l i q u i d a t t h e b o t t o m o f i t , s a l t , and
rags at
9
CR-10-1464
t h e r e s i d e n c e were a l l m a t e r i a l s n e c e s s a r y f o r a o n e - p o t meth
lab.
D e t e c t i v e Schlemmer
testified:
" P r o s e c u t o r : And s a y i n t h e i n s t a n c e o f c o c a i n e ,
would you a c t u a l l y c o l l e c t t h a t evidence?
" [ D e t e c t i v e S c h l e m m e r ] : Y e s , ma'am.
i t myself.
" P r o s e c u t o r : What w o u l d y o u do w i t h
once y o u c o l l e c t e d i t ?
I would c o l l e c t
that
evidence
" [ D e t e c t i v e Schlemmer]: I would submit i t t o the
Department o f F o r e n s i c Sciences f o r a n a l y s i s .
" P r o s e c u t o r : Okay.
I n t h e i n s t a n c e o f a meth l a b ,
do y o u c o l l e c t e v i d e n c e i n t h e same way y o u w o u l d
w i t h , say, c o c a i n e ?
" [ D e t e c t i v e S c h l e m m e r ] : No, ma'am, we do n o t .
" P r o s e c u t o r : Why n o t ?
" [ D e t e c t i v e S c h l e m m e r ] : When y o u show up on t h e
s c e n e o f a meth l a b , l i k e I s a i d , y o u have many
v o l a t i l e chemicals.
Y o u have c a m p i n g f u e l w h i c h i s
flammable.
A l o t o f t i m e s y o u ' l l have l i t h i u m
s t r i p s , b a t t e r y s t r i p s , which c r e a t e sparks and heat
w h i c h c a n c a u s e t h e camp f u e l t o i g n i t e .
You can
a l s o have m u l t i p l e o t h e r e x p l o s i v e d e v i c e s t h a t a r e
g e n e r a l l y kept under p r e s s u r e .
So once t h o s e have
b e e n c o m b i n e d , t h e r e ' s no way t o s e n d i t o v e r t o t h e
l a b w i t h o u t e n d a n g e r i n g t h e p e o p l e t h a t w o u l d be
testing i t . "
(R.
238-39.)
white
acidic
Detective
Schlemmer
said
that
he o b s e r v e d
a
smoke c o m i n g f r o m t h e c o n t a i n e r , t h a t t h e smoke h a d an
ammonia s m e l l , a n d t h a t , i n h i s e x p e r i e n c e ,
10
w h i c h he
CR-10-1464
h a d d e t a i l e d , t h e box d i s c o v e r e d i n t h e c l o s e t was a " o n e - p o t
methamphetamine l a b . " ( R . 2 4 5 . )
testified
that
at
a
certain
D e t e c t i v e Schlemmer f u r t h e r
stage
i n the manufacture
methamphetamine, t h e p l a s t i c b o t t l e w i l l
of
l i q u i d : a bottom
contain three
layers
and t o p l a y e r o f b y p r o d u c t and a m i d d l e
l a y e r o f methamphetamine o i l .
He f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t what
s h o u l d be a c l e a r l i q u i d i n t h e p l a s t i c b o t t l e i s o f t e n
blue
or
red
depending
on
the
ephedrine or pseudoephedrine.
or
pseudoephedrine
of
is
a
component
tinted
containing
the
He s a i d t h a t e i t h e r e p h e d r i n e
necessary
ingredient
in
making
methamphetamine and t h a t n e i t h e r may be p u r c h a s e d b u t must be
e x t r a c t e d from v a r i o u s c o l d or a l l e r g y p i l l s
These p i l l s
During
are assigned s p e c i f i c
the chemical processing
colors
inside
s u c h as S u d a f e d .
—
Sudafed i s r e d .
the p l a s t i c
bottle,
D e t e c t i v e Schlemmer s a i d , t h e c o l o r a t t a c h e d t o t h e a g e n t u s e d
s e p a r a t e s and r e l e a s e s t h e c o l o r i n g " t h u s c a u s i n g t h e t i n t i n g
in
the l i q u i d . "
manufacture,
methamphetamine
used
(R.
filters
270.)
Following
would
be
used
o i l and t h e n t h e b u t a n e
this
to
11
i n the
extract
and h o s e s
t o apply p r e s s u r e t o the o i l , which
f o r m a t i o n o f c r y s t a l methamphetamine.
stage
results
the
would
be
i n the
Here, t h e s u b s t a n c e a t
CR-10-1464
t h e t o p o f t h e l i q u i d was
red, i n d i c a t i n g that
pseudoephedrine
had been used i n the p r o c e s s .
Detective
Schlemmer
Administration,
who,
contacted
the
Drug
Enforcement
i n t u r n , summoned a company --
One-Stop
E n v i r o n m e n t a l -- t o d i s p o s e o f t h e l a b and i t s c o n t e n t s .
He
w a t c h e d an e m p l o y e e o f One-Stop t e s t t h e f i n i s h e d p r o d u c t
and
then
place
material,
i t in
Detective
E.T.
jury.
first
stepfather,
married
said
that
on
into
Wallace " f i r e [ ]
she
transporting
At
officers
trial,
grade,
that
Wallace,
E.T.
and
a f t e r Wallace
"medicine"
that
for
hazardous
Schlemmer s a i d .
law-enforcement
to the
then i n the
her
container
t e s t i f i e d at Wallace's t r i a l
i n t e r v i e w by
played
a
three
the
was
she
arrested.
plastic
a l s o was
her
and
that
she
was
her mother
and
On
she
had
bottle
and
mother
t h a t p o l i c e would
and
Wallace
the videotape
seen
that
i t up and t h e n he smoked i t . "
t o l d Wallace
admitted
testified
l i v e d with
that
occasions
and a v i d e o t a p e o f h e r
find
Wallace
she
had
E.T.
put
seen
She a l s o s a i d
the
"stuff"
in
the c l o s e t .
A l a b a m a has n e v e r r e q u i r e d d i r e c t p r o o f t h a t a
is
a c o n t r o l l e d substance
to s u s t a i n a drug
12
substance
conviction.
As
CR-10-1464
this
Court
stated
C r i m . App.
i n J.M.A. v.
State,
74
So.
3d 487 ( A l a .
2011):
"This
Court
has
upheld
convictions
for
possession of a c o n t r o l l e d substance d e s p i t e a lack
of
scientific
testing
where
a
witness
who
c o n f i s c a t e d or took p o s s e s s i o n of the substance
testified
to
having
sufficient
knowledge
or
e x p e r t i s e t o i d e n t i f y t h e s u b s t a n c e . See Hanks v.
S t a t e , 562 So. 2d 536, 540 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) ,
r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 562 So. 2d 540 ( A l a . 1989)
(upholding admission of p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s opinion
t e s t i m o n y t h a t s u b s t a n c e was m a r i j u a n a , d e s p i t e l a c k
o f s c i e n t i f i c t e s t i n g , where ' t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n [ e d ]
ample e v i d e n c e o f t h e t e s t i f y i n g p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s
experience
and
training
i n the area
of
drug
e n f o r c e m e n t and d r u g d e t e c t i o n and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ' ) ;
H e a d l e y v. S t a t e , 720 So. 2d 996, 998 ( A l a . C r i m .
App. 1998) ('The e v i d e n c e does n o t have t o c o n s i s t
of
scientific
testing,
so l o n g as t h e p r o p e r
foundation
for
the
arresting
officer's
own
experience i n i d e n t i f y i n g marijuana i s l a i d . ' ) ;
P o w e l l v. S t a t e , 804 So. 2d 1167, 1170 ( A l a . C r i m .
App. 2001) ( a f f i r m i n g c o n v i c t i o n where ' t h e w i t n e s s
who i d e n t i f i e d t h e s u b s t a n c e as m a r i j u a n a [ ] h a d
experience
i n recognizing
marijuana[]
and
was
f a m i l i a r w i t h i t s odor and a p p e a r a n c e ' ) . "
74 So. 3d a t 493-94.
Overwhelmingly,
have c o n s i d e r e d t h i s
the vast m a j o r i t y of j u r i s d i c t i o n s
that
i s s u e agree t h a t c h e m i c a l t e s t s are not
necessary to obtain a drug-related conviction.
"'The
law
i s quite
clear
that
the
i n t r o d u c t i o n of a chemical a n a l y s i s of the
substance i s not e s s e n t i a l t o c o n v i c t i o n .
... The n a r c o t i c n a t u r e o f t h e s u b s t a n c e
n e e d n o t be p r o v e d b y d i r e c t e v i d e n c e i f
13
CR-10-1464
the
circumstantial
evidence
presented
e s t a b l i s h e d ... t h a t b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e
doubt
the
substance
was
[cocaine].
[Citations omitted.]'
" U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Z i e l i e , 734 F.2d 1447, 1456 ( 1 1 t h
C i r . 1 9 8 4 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 469 U.S. 1189, 105 S.Ct.
957, 83 L.Ed.2d 964
( 1 9 8 5 ) ; see U n i t e d S t a t e s v.
L e a v i t t , 878 F.2d
1329,
1336
(11th C i r . ) ,
cert.
d e n i e d , 493 U.S. 968, 110 S.Ct. 415, 107 L.Ed.2d 380
( 1 9 8 9 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. H a r r e l l , 737 F.2d 971, 978
(11th C i r . 1 9 8 4 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 469 U.S. 1164,
105
S.Ct. 923, 83 L.Ed.2d 935 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v.
C r i s p , 563 F.2d 1242, 1244
(5th C i r . 1977); U n i t e d
S t a t e s v. Quesada, 512 F.2d 1043, 1045 ( 5 t h C i r . ) ,
c e r t . d e n i e d , 423 U.S. 946, 96 S.Ct. 356, 46 L.Ed.2d
277
( 1 9 7 5 ) . The
law of t h i s c i r c u i t
takes
the
expansive
view
that
the
identification
of
a
c o n t r o l l e d substance
can be e s t a b l i s h e d by
such
c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e as ' l a y e x p e r i e n c e b a s e d on
f a m i l i a r i t y through p r i o r use,
trading,
or
law
enforcement;
a
high
sales price;
on-the-scene
r e m a r k s by a c o n s p i r a t o r i d e n t i f y i n g t h e s u b s t a n c e
as a d r u g ; and b e h a v i o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f s a l e s and
u s e , s u c h as t e s t i n g , w e i g h i n g , c u t t i n g and p e c u l i a r
i n g e s t i o n . ' H a r r e l l , 737 F.2d a t 978. A d d i t i o n a l l y ,
t h i s c o u r t has r e c o g n i z e d t h a t 'the u n c o r r o b o r a t e d
t e s t i m o n y o f a p e r s o n who o b s e r v e d a d e f e n d a n t i n
p o s s e s s i o n of a c o n t r o l l e d substance i s s u f f i c i e n t
i f the person i s f a m i l i a r w i t h the substance
at
i s s u e . ' Z i e l i e , 734 F.2d a t 1456; see U n i t e d S t a t e s
v. R o d r i g u e z - A r e v a l o , 734 F.2d 612, 616 ( 1 1 t h C i r .
1 9 8 4 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. S a n c h e z , 722 F.2d 1501,
1506
(11th C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 467 U.S. 1208, 104 S.Ct.
2396, 81 L . E d . 2 d 353
(1984)."
U n i t e d S t a t e s v. B a g g e t t ,
954
F.2d
674,
677
(11th C i r . 1992).
" I l l e g a l d r u g s w i l l o f t e n be u n a v a i l a b l e f o r
s c i e n t i f i c a n a l y s i s b e c a u s e t h e i r n a t u r e i s t o be
consumed. As a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r , t h e r e f o r e , t h e
e v i d e n t i a r y r u l e u r g e d by
[the a p p e l l a n t ] would
14
CR-10-1464
i n s u l a t e from p r o s e c u t i o n a l a r g e c l a s s of u n l a w f u l
a c t s i n v o l v i n g i l l i c i t d r u g s when t h e g o v e r n m e n t
h a p p e n s upon t h e s c e n e t o o l a t e t o s e i z e a s a m p l e o f
the substance.
To o u r k n o w l e d g e , no c o u r t has h e l d
t h a t s c i e n t i f i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a s u b s t a n c e i s an
absolute
prerequisite
to
conviction
for
a
d r u g - r e l a t e d o f f e n s e , and we t o o a r e u n w i l l i n g t o
announce s u c h a r u l e . I n v i e w o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s
t h a t s u c h a b u r d e n w o u l d p l a c e on p r o s e c u t o r s , and
i n accordance w i t h general e v i d e n t i a r y p r i n c i p l e s ,
c o u r t s have h e l d t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t may
establish
the
identity
of
a
drug
through
cumulative
c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . See, e.g., U n i t e d S t a t e s v.
Osgood, 794
F.2d
1087,
1095
(5th C i r . ) ,
cert.
d e n i e d , 479 U.S. 994, 107 S.Ct. 596, 93 L.Ed.2d 596
( 1 9 8 6 ) ; [ U n i t e d S t a t e s v.] H a r r e l l , 737 F.2d
[971]
978-79
[(11th
C i r . 1984)].
So
long
as
the
government produces s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e , d i r e c t or
circumstantial,
from which the j u r y i s a b l e
to
i d e n t i f y the substance beyond a reasonable doubt,
the
lack
of
scientific
evidence
is
not
objectionable.
Cf.
Osgood,
794
F.2d
at
1095;
H a r r e l l , 737 F.2d a t 978."
U n i t e d S t a t e s v. S c h r o c k ,
855
F.2d
See a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v. W a l t e r s ,
and
334
not
770
(1st C i r .
testimony
r e q u i r e d to prove the
identification
904 F.2d
(6th C i r . 1988).
("Proof b a s e d on s c i e n t i f i c a n a l y s i s o r e x p e r t
1990)
is
327,
illicit
of a substance
as
765,
nature
of a
a d r u g may
substance,
be
based
on
t h e o p i n i o n o f a k n o w l e d g e a b l e l a y p e r s o n . " ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v.
Scott,
725
F.2d
circumstantial
43,
45
evidence
( 4 t h C i r . 1984)
may
be
i n t r o d u c t i o n o f an e x p e r t c h e m i c a l
15
("[L]ay
sufficient,
testimony
and
without
the
a n a l y s i s , to e s t a b l i s h
the
CR-10-1464
identity
of
the
substance
transaction.");
935
P.2d
623,
testimony
S t a t e v.
625
may
be
i n v o l v e d i n an
Hernandez,
alleged narcotics
85 Wash. App.
672,
( 1 9 9 7 ) ( " C i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence
sufficient
to e s t a b l i s h
the
676,
and
identity
lay
of
d r u g i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e . " ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. M u r r a y , 753
612,
615
( 7 t h C i r . 1985)
("The
identity
of
a
drug
a
F.2d
may
be
e s t a b l i s h e d by c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . " ) ; S t e r l i n g v. S t a t e ,
791
a
S.W.2d 274,
controlled
277
substance
S t a t e s v. A g u e c i ,
with
any
dealing
(Tex. App.
310
1990)
without
F.2d
narcotics
817,
may
e x p e r t may
chemical
828
o t h e r component o f t h e
with
("An
be
identify
analysis.");
(2d C i r . 1962)
crime,
United
("Just
the e x i s t e n c e of
proved
by
as
and
circumstantial
e v i d e n c e ; t h e r e n e e d be no s a m p l e p l a c e d b e f o r e t h e j u r y ,
nor
n e e d t h e r e be
the
evidence
t e s t i m o n y by q u a l i f i e d c h e m i s t s
f u r n i s h e d found
q u e s t i o n was
for inferring
evidence
following
that
scientific
t h a t the m a t e r i a l i n
narcotics.").
The U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p p e a l s
s t a t e d the
as l o n g as
will
evidence
concerning
support
as t o t h e
a
the
types
drug
identity
introduced:
16
f o r the Fourth
Circuit
of
circumstantial
conviction
where
of the drug
has
no
been
CR-10-1464
"Such c i r c u m s t a n t i a l p r o o f may i n c l u d e e v i d e n c e o f
the p h y s i c a l appearance of the substance i n v o l v e d i n
the
transaction,
evidence
that
the
substance
produced
the expected
e f f e c t s when s a m p l e d
by
someone f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e i l l i c i t d r u g , e v i d e n c e
t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e was u s e d i n t h e same manner as
t h e i l l i c i t d r u g , t e s t i m o n y t h a t a h i g h p r i c e was
paid
i n cash f o r the substance, evidence
that
t r a n s a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g t h e s u b s t a n c e were c a r r i e d on
w i t h s e c r e c y o r d e v i o u s n e s s , and e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e
s u b s t a n c e was c a l l e d by t h e name o f t h e i l l e g a l
n a r c o t i c by t h e d e f e n d a n t o r o t h e r s i n h i s p r e s e n c e
United
S t a t e s v. D o l a n , 544 F.2d 1219, 1221
Here,
Detective
Schlemmer
testified
(4th C i r . 1976)).
that
the
plastic
b o t t l e and i t s components were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e m a t e r i a l s
needed
to
emanating
build
a
meth
l a b and
that
the
chemical
smell
f r o m t h e b o t t l e was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p r e s e n c e o f
methamphetamine.
The l i q u i d on t h e t o p i n t h e b o t t l e was t h e
c o l o r o f one o f t h e i n g r e d i e n t s u s e d i n t h e p r o c e s s ,
Detective
Schlemmer
was
indicating
2
said,
and
the
the presence
substance
i n this
of pseudoephedrine.
The d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n
2
case
E.T.
said
asserts:
" [ T ] h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e t h a t t h e
s u b s t a n c e i n t h e s e i z e d p l a s t i c b o t t l e was, i n f a c t ,
methamphetamine o r t h a t c o m p l e t e d methamphetamine
had
been p r o d u c e d
by W a l l a c e .
Rather,
Det.
Schlemmer
explained
part
of the
manufacturing
process, t e s t i f i e d that the layered l i q u i d i n the
p l a s t i c b o t t l e i n d i c a t e d t h a t an i n t e r m e d i a t e
step
17
red,
on
CR-10-1464
videotape
bottle
smoked
that
she h a d
and t h a t
it."
reasonable
manufacture
Wallace
she h a d s e e n
The
doubt
seen
State's
that
him " f i r e [ ]
evidence
Wallace
of a c o n t r o l l e d
put
was
"medicine"
i t up and t h e n
established
guilty
i n the
of
beyond
he
a
the unlawful
substance.
II.
i n t h e p r o c e s s h a d n o t b e e n c o m p l e t e d and t h a t two
a d d i t i o n a l s t e p s were r e q u i r e d —
f i l t r a t i o n to
e x t r a c t methamphetamine o i l and a p p l i c a t i o n o f gas
to the o i l t o c r y s t a l i z e i t , b u t t h a t ' i t hadn't
made i t t o t h a t p r o c e s s y e t . ' "
So. 3d a t
(emphasis a d d e d ) .
As t h e
emphasized
language
indicates,
D e t e c t i v e Schlemmer's t e s t i m o n y
was
s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e j u r y t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e o n e - b o t t l e meth
l a b i n t h i s c a s e c o n t a i n e d methamphetamine.
Detective
Schlemmer s p e c i f i c a l l y
testified
that the
m i d d l e l a y e r o f l i q u i d i n a o n e - b o t t l e meth l a b , l i k e t h e one
i n W a l l a c e ' s c a s e , i s methamphetamine o i l . F o r p u r p o s e s o f
p r o v i n g t h a t W a l l a c e p o s s e s s e d methamphetamine i n v i o l a t i o n o f
§ 13A-12-217, t h i s t e s t i m o n y was s u f f i c i e n t . W a l l a c e does n o t
a r g u e t h a t t h e S t a t e was r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e t h a t he p o s s e s s e d
methamphetamine; r a t h e r , he a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e was r e q u i r e d
t o u s e s c i e n t i f i c o r f o r e n s i c a n a l y s i s t o p r o v e t h a t he
p o s s e s s e d methamphetamine.
See W a l l a c e ' s b r i e f , p. 15 ("The
c o r e o f Mr. W a l l a c e ' s argument i s t h a t t h e S t a t e c a n n o t p r o v e
[ i t s ] case w i t h o u t s c i e n t i f i c evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a
chemical
compound l i s t e d
i n Schedule
I through
V
was
m a n u f a c t u r e d b y Mr. W a l l a c e
Mr. W a l l a c e ' s c o n t e n t i o n i s
t h a t i n o r d e r t o c o n v i c t t h e S t a t e w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o
present expert s c i e n t i f i c testimony at the t r i a l of h i s case."
(Emphasis a d d e d ) ) .
For the reasons, d i s c u s s e d , Wallace's
p o s i t i o n i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Alabama law.
18
CR-10-1464
Wallace next argues t h a t the State
f a i l e d t o prove
that
he v i o l a t e d § 26-15-3.2, A l a . Code 1975, b e c a u s e , he s a y s , i t
failed
to prove
t h a t he was
a "responsible person"
as
that
t e r m i s d e f i n e d i n § 26-15-2, A l a . Code 1975.
S e c t i o n 2 6 - 1 5 - 3 . 2 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, d e f i n e s
of chemical
the crime
endangerment:
"(a) A r e s p o n s i b l e p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f
c h e m i c a l endangerment o f e x p o s i n g
a c h i l d t o an
e n v i r o n m e n t i n w h i c h he o r she does any o f t h e
following:
"(1)
Knowingly,
recklessly,
or
i n t e n t i o n a l l y causes or permits a c h i l d t o
be e x p o s e d t o , t o i n g e s t o r i n h a l e , o r t o
have c o n t a c t w i t h a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e ,
chemical substance, or drug p a r a p h e r n a l i a
as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 13A-12-260."
A "responsible person"
i s d e f i n e d i n § 26-15-2(4), A l a .
Code 1975, as f o l l o w s :
"A c h i l d ' s n a t u r a l p a r e n t , s t e p p a r e n t , aaddooppttiivvee
ny
parent,
l e g a l guardian,
c u s t o d i a n , o r any o t h e r
p e r s o n who has t h e p e r m a n e n t o r t e m p o r a r y c a r e o r
custody or r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the s u p e r v i s i o n of a
child."
Here,
(R. 218.)
W a l l a c e was
had
E.T.
testified
that
Wallace
was
her
stepfather.
She s a i d t h a t h e r m o t h e r and W a l l a c e m a r r i e d
arrested.
Wallace t o l d
law enforcement t h a t
l i v e d a t t h e Plum S t r e e t r e s i d e n c e
19
after
f o r f i v e years.
he
M.T.
CR-10-1464
t o l d p o l i c e t h a t t h e bedroom where
occupied
b y h e r and
The
jury
supervision
t h e d r u g s were
found
was
that
was
under the
State
presented
Wallace.
could
have
inferred
o f h e r m o t h e r and W a l l a c e .
E.T.
The
s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t W a l l a c e was a " r e s p o n s i b l e p e r s o n "
as
t h a t t e r m i s d e f i n e d i n § 26-15-2, A l a . Code 1975.
III.
Last,
Wallace
reversible
e r r o r by
argues
that
the c i r c u i t
refusing to give
on t h e
that are contained
§ 20-2-181, A l a . Code 1975.
At t r i a l ,
181(d),
precursor
Wallace requested
A l a . Code
chemicals
The c i r c u i t
1975,
that the court read
the
recognized
list
of
chemicals
17
c o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t no p a t t e r n j u r y
not e x c l u s i v e ,
circuit
the
court
and
declined
to the j u r y .
that
§ 20-2-
enumerated
i n that s t a t u t e , to the j u r y .
e x i s t e d f o r the offense, that the l i s t
was
committed
an i n s t r u c t i o n
s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n of precursor chemicals
in
court
of precursor
the l i s t
to read
the
instruction
was
list
chemicals
confusing.
of
the
precursor
(R. 320.)
" ' I t has l o n g b e e n t h e l a w i n A l a b a m a t h a t a
[ c i r c u i t ] c o u r t has b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n f o r m u l a t i n g
j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s , p r o v i d e d those i n s t r u c t i o n s are
a c c u r a t e r e f l e c t i o n s o f t h e l a w and f a c t s o f t h e
20
The
CR-10-1464
c a s e . ' C u l p e p p e r v. S t a t e , 827 So. 2d 883, 885 ( A l a .
C r i m . App. 2001) ( c i t i n g K n o t t s v. S t a t e , 686 So. 2d
431, 456 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 5 ) ) . "
B a r r e t t v. S t a t e , 33 So. 3d 1287, 1288 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2009) .
"The t r i a l j u d g e may r e f u s e t o g i v e a r e q u e s t e d j u r y
charge
when
the charge
i s either
fairly
and
s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o v e r e d by t h e t r i a l
judge's
oral
charge or i s c o n f u s i n g , m i s l e a d i n g , ungrammatical,
n o t p r e d i c a t e d on a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e ,
argumentative, a b s t r a c t , or a misstatement of the
law."
H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 794 So. 2d 1214, 1220 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000) .
As s t a t e d i n P a r t I , t o be c o n v i c t e d o f v i o l a t i n g § 13A12-218,
A l a . Code
1975,
the
State
must
prove
that
the
a p p e l l a n t i s g u i l t y o f v i o l a t i n g § 13A-12-217, A l a . Code 1975.
This
section
provides:
" ( a ) A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f u n l a w f u l
manufacture of a c o n t r o l l e d substance i n the second
d e g r e e i f ... he d o e s any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g :
"(1)
Manufactures
a
controlled
s u b s t a n c e e n u m e r a t e d i n S c h e d u l e s I t o V,
inclusive.
"(2) P o s s e s s e s p r e c u r s o r s u b s t a n c e s as
d e t e r m i n e d i n S e c t i o n 2 0 - 2 - 1 8 1 , i n any
amount
with
the i n t e n t to u n l a w f u l l y
manufacture a c o n t r o l l e d substance."
(Emphasis added.)
21
CR-10-1464
Here,
the
committing
indictment
the offense
charged
alternative
of the unlawful
means
manufacture
of
of a
c o n t r o l l e d substance i n the second degree:
"Emmett G r a d y W a l l a c e ... whose name i s o t h e r w i s e
unknown t o t h e G r a n d J u r y , d i d k n o w i n g l y m a n u f a c t u r e
a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e i n S c h e d u l e s I t o V, t o - w i t :
METHAMPHETAMINE,
and/or
possess
precursor
s u b s t a n c e s , i n a n y amount, w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o
u n l a w f u l l y manufacture a c o n t r o l l e d substance
"
(Emphasis
added.)
The c i r c u i t c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y on t h e m a n u f a c t u r e
of
methamphetamine, a n d t h e j u r y
Wallace
guilty
of the unlawful
returned a verdict
manufacture
of a
finding
controlled
substance.
"We have r e c o g n i z e d t h a t an e r r o r i n i n s t r u c t i o n s
pertaining
t o a p a r t i c u l a r c h a r g e i s r e n d e r e d h a r m l e s s where
the
jury
returns
a
a l t e r n a t i v e charge."
1991).
Crim.
See D e u t c s h
App. 1 9 9 2 ) .
failure
to l i s t
constitute
verdict
of g u i l t y
to a
different
or
S t a t e v . Bowman, 588 A . 2 d 728, 732 (Me.
v. S t a t e ,
Thus,
610 So. 2d 1212, 1221
any e r r o r
a l l the precursor
i n the c i r c u i t
(Ala.
court's
chemicals necessary t o
a v i o l a t i o n o f § 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 1 7 ( a ) ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975,
an a l t e r n a t i v e method o f c o m m i t t i n g t h e c r i m e o f t h e u n l a w f u l
manufacture
was
of a c o n t r o l l e d
substance i n the second
harmless beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt.
22
degree,
CR-10-1464
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
c o n v i c t i o n s f o r the chemical
unlawful
affirm
Wallace's
endangerment o f a c h i l d
and t h e
manufacture of a c o n t r o l l e d substance.
APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
2012,
we
GRANTED; OPINION OF JUNE
2 9,
WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED.
Windom, P . J . , a n d K e l l u m , B u r k e a n d J o i n e r , J J . , c o n c u r ;
Welch, J . , c o n c u r s i n p a r t and d i s s e n t s i n p a r t , w i t h
WELCH, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g
The m a j o r i t y
for
Code
chemical
1975,
and
i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t .
a f f i r m s Emmett G r a d y W a l l a c e ' s
endangerment
of a c h i l d ,
first-degree
unlawful
convictions
§ 26-15-3.2(A), A l a .
manufacture
c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e , § 13A-12-218, A l a . Code 1975.
with
the majority's
conviction.
affirmance
I disagree
opinion.
of
a
I concur
of the chemical-endangerment
with
the majority's
r e s o l u t i o n of
W a l l a c e ' s c h a l l e n g e t o t h e u n l a w f u l - m a n u f a c t u r e c o n v i c t i o n and
respectfully
dissent
as
to
the
portions
of
the
opinion
d i s c u s s i n g t h e two i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o t h a t c o n v i c t i o n .
Wallace argues t h a t the t r i a l
the
motion
manufacture
c o u r t e r r e d when i t d e n i e d
f o r a judgment o f a c q u i t t a l
charge
that
he
made
23
as t o t h e u n l a w f u l -
at the conclusion
of the
CR-10-1464
State's
case
because,
he
says,
the
S t a t e d i d not
present
s c i e n t i f i c e v i d e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h e i t h e r t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e he
manufactured
was
methamphetamine
or
that
he
possessed
c h e m i c a l p r e c u r s o r s as d e f i n e d i n § 2 0 - 2 - 1 8 1 , A l a . Code
any
1975.
I t appears t h a t the m a j o r i t y holds t h a t the S t a t e proved
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
Wallace
was
guilty
of
the
u n l a w f u l m a n u f a c t u r e o f a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e , and a p p e a r s t o
h o l d t h a t t h e S t a t e e s t a b l i s h e d a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e as t o b o t h
alternatives
of
the
charge
--
that
Wallace
actually
m a n u f a c t u r e d methamphetamine and t h a t he p o s s e s s e d a p r e c u r s o r
chemical.
neither
Of
The
evidence
presented
by
the
State
supports
alternative.
course,
the m a j o r i t y
has
correctly
stated
that,
in
r e v i e w i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f o r a judgment of
a c q u i t t a l , t h i s C o u r t must c o n s i d e r t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e
light
most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e S t a t e and must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r , a t t h e
t i m e t h e m o t i o n was made, t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e b e f o r e
the
jury
found
the
from
which
defendant
the
jury
guilty.
could
I
by
fair
inference
agree
with
the
have
majority's
s t a t e m e n t t h a t "Alabama has n e v e r r e q u i r e d d i r e c t p r o o f
that
a
drug
substance
is
a
controlled
substance
24
to
sustain
a
CR-10-1464
conviction."
majority's
So.
.
holding
implicit
3d a t
that
r e q u i r e d i n a l l cases to present
testing
and
analysis
However, a l l t h o s e
to
I do n o t d i s a g r e e
the
a
the
is
prosecution
e v i d e n c e b a s e d on
identify
with
not
scientific
controlled
substance.
p r o p o s i t i o n s , combined w i t h the
principle
t h a t c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e same w e i g h t as
direct
evidence
so
defendant's g u i l t ,
d e n i a l of Wallace's
long
as
i t points
unequivocally
a r e n o t enough t o u p h o l d t h e t r i a l
to
the
court's
motion f o r a judgment of a c q u i t t a l i n t h i s
case.
Wallace
was
charged
with
knowingly
c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e -- methamphetamine -a
precursor
1975,
substance
w i t h the
as
defined
in §
manufacturing
and/or
a
possessing
20-2-181,
Ala.
Code
i n t e n t to u n l a w f u l l y manufacture a c o n t r o l l e d
substance.
S e c t i o n 13A-12-218 p r o v i d e s ,
"(a) A
manufacture
d e g r e e i f he
two o r more
conjunction
i n relevant part:
p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f u n l a w f u l
of a c o n t r o l l e d substance i n the f i r s t
o r she v i o l a t e s S e c t i o n 13A-12-217 and
of the f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s o c c u r r e d i n
with that violation:
" . . .
"(4)
operation
A
was
to
clandestine
take place
25
or
laboratory
d i d take
CR-10-1464
p l a c e w i t h i n 500 f e e t o f a r e s i d e n c e ,
of b u s i n e s s , church, o r s c h o o l .
place
" . . .
"(6)
A
clandestine
laboratory
operation
was
f o r the production
of
c o n t r o l l e d substances l i s t e d i n Schedule I
or Schedule I I .
"(7) A p e r s o n u n d e r t h e age o f 17 was
present during the manufacturing process."
S e c t i o n 13A-12-217, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s ,
i n relevant
part:
"(a) A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f u n l a w f u l
manufacture of a c o n t r o l l e d substance i n the second
d e g r e e i f , e x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e a u t h o r i z e d i n s t a t e
o r f e d e r a l l a w , he o r she does any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g :
"(1)
Manufactures
a
controlled
s u b s t a n c e e n u m e r a t e d i n S c h e d u l e s I t o V,
inclusive.
"(2) P o s s e s s e s p r e c u r s o r s u b s t a n c e s as
d e t e r m i n e d i n S e c t i o n 2 0 - 2 - 1 8 1 , i n any
amount
with
the i n t e n t to
unlawfully
manufacture a c o n t r o l l e d substance."
A.
M a n u f a c t u r e o f Methamphetamine
The m a j o r i t y s t a t e s :
" D e t e c t i v e Schlemmer t e s t i f i e d
that
t h e p l a s t i c b o t t l e and i t s components were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e
materials
smell
needed t o b u i l d
emanating
presence
from
o f meth."
a meth
the
bottle
So.
l a b and t h a t
was
3d a t
26
the
chemical
consistent
with
the
.
with
the
I agree
CR-10-1464
majority.
The
components
State
for a
established
one-pot
that
Wallace
methamphetamine
lab.
had the
The
State
further established that the l i q u i d at the top of the p l a s t i c
bottle
had a r e d t i n t ,
indicating
the possible
presence of
p s e u d o e p h e d r i n e , w h i c h t h e S t a t e a c k n o w l e d g e d was a n e c e s s a r y
i n g r e d i e n t o f methamphetamine.
F i n a l l y , the State
t h a t E.T. h a d on p r i o r o c c a s i o n s
bottle
and t h a t
However,
substance
in
methamphetamine
the
presented
seized
or that
produced by W a l l a c e .
the
plastic
t o prove
bottle
in
methamphetamine
process
and a p p l i c a t i o n
-- f i l t r a t i o n
liquid
step i n
and t h a t
two a d d i t i o n a l
to extract
methamphetamine
o f gas t o t h e o i l t o c r y s t a l i z e
s u b s t a n c e i n t h e Mason
there
had been
t e s t i f i e d that the layered
had n o t been c o m p l e t e d
were r e q u i r e d
fact,
R a t h e r , D e t . Schlemmer e x p l a i n e d p a r t o f
t h a t " i t h a d n ' t made i t t o t h a t p r o c e s s y e t . "
but
was,
that the
t h e p l a s t i c b o t t l e i n d i c a t e d t h a t an i n t e r m e d i a t e
steps
oil
he made i n t h e b o t t l e .
no e v i d e n c e
completed
the m a n u f a c t u r i n g p r o c e s s ,
in
seen W a l l a c e p u t p i l l s i n t h e
he h a d smoked what
the State
established
i t , but
(R. 283.) The
j a r was t e s t e d b y t h e c l e a n - u p
crew,
was no t e s t i m o n y a b o u t t h e r e s u l t o f t h a t t e s t a n d
27
CR-10-1464
c e r t a i n l y no t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e t e s t r e v e a l e d t h e p r e s e n c e o f
methamphetamine.
A t most, t h e S t a t e p r o v e d t h a t W a l l a c e was a t t e m p t i n g t o
make methamphetamine, b u t t h e S t a t e ' s own w i t n e s s e s t a b l i s h e d
t h a t W a l l a c e had not completed the p r o c e s s .
hoped t h a t
that
the j u r y would
i t would
fill
Rather, the State
i n t h e gaps i n t h e e v i d e n c e ,
overlook the State's
failure
to provide
even
c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t W a l l a c e had a c t u a l l y manufactured
methamphetamine,
and
that
i t would
find
Wallace
guilty
m a n u f a c t u r i n g a d r u g w i t h o u t any e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e d r u g
ever
actually
produced.
A
reasonable jury
could
of
was
n o t have
c o n c l u d e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t W a l l a c e was g u i l t y o f
completed
crime
of
the
unlawful
manufacture
of
methamphetamine, and I d i s s e n t f r o m t h e m a j o r i t y ' s h o l d i n g t o
the
contrary.
However, A l a b a m a s p e c i f i c a l l y c r i m i n a l i z e s t h e a t t e m p t t o
commit a c o n t r o l l e d - s u b s t a n c e c r i m e .
" S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 0 3 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s
t h a t '[a] p e r s o n i s g u i l t y o f an a t t e m p t t o commit
a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e c r i m e i f he e n g a g e s i n t h e
c o n d u c t d e f i n e d i n § 1 3 A - 4 - 2 ( a ) , and t h e c r i m e
attempted i s a c o n t r o l l e d substance crime.'
See
also
Rhodes
v.
State,
686
So.2d
1288,
1289
( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) ; N o r r i s v. S t a t e , 601 So.2d 1105
(Ala.Cr.App. 1991).
S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 4 - 2 ( a ) , A l a . Code
28
CR-10-1464
1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t ' [ a ] p e r s o n i s g u i l t y o f an
a t t e m p t t o commit a c r i m e i f , w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o
commit a s p e c i f i c o f f e n s e , he does any o v e r t a c t
towards the commission of such o f f e n s e . ' "
D a v i s v. S t a t e , 747 So. 2d 921, 922
Here,
the
intermediate
State
established
phase
methamphetamine.
in
the
( A l a . C r i m . App.
that
Wallace
process
of
1999).
was
in
an
manufacturing
When t h e p o l i c e a r r i v e d , a c h e m i c a l r e a c t i o n
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h m a n u f a c t u r i n g methamphetamine was t a k i n g p l a c e
in a container
commonly u s e d t o m a n u f a c t u r e
methamphetamine.
But f o r p r o o f of the presence of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine,
Wallace
had
the
necessary
components
m a n u f a c t u r e o f methamphetamine.
to
complete
the
These f a c t s a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o
c o n s t i t u t e o v e r t a c t s toward the commission
of manufacturing
methamphetamine.
Because
attempted
should
that
the
manufacture
was
charged
court
to
controlled
offense.
enter
offense
substance
on
the
and
a
court with
judgment
of
of
attempted
to
impose
a
appellate
29
courts
of
this
the
case
instructionsfor
guilty
of
manufacture
sentence
See B r a n d v. S t a t e , 960 So. 2d 748
(holding that
offense
of a c o n t r o l l e d substance,
be remanded t o t h e t r i a l
lesser-included
2006)
jury
for
the
of
a
that
( A l a . C r i m . App.
have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o
CR-10-1464
reverse
a
conviction
lesser-included
Based
on
and
order
an
entry
o f judgment
on
a
offense).
the foregoing,
the t r i a l
court erred
when i t
d e n i e d W a l l a c e ' s m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l as t o t h e
first
a l t e r n a t i v e of the unlawful-manufacture
B.
Possession of Precursor Chemicals
The
majority
count.
holds
that
the
State
proved
the
second
a l t e r n a t i v e o f t h e u n l a w f u l - m a n u f a c t u r e c h a r g e -- t h a t W a l l a c e
was i n p o s s e s s i o n o f a p r e c u r s o r s u b s t a n c e and t h a t he h a d t h e
i n t e n t t o manufacture
methamphetamine.
1.
Evidentiary
The
State d i d not p r o f f e r
Wallace
was
I disagree.
Insufficiency
any e v i d e n c e
indicating
that
i n p o s s e s s i o n o f any p r e c u r s o r s u b s t a n c e s ,
as
d e f i n e d i n § 20-2-181(d),
A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h e v i d e n c e was
required
alternative
to
possessed
manufacture
prove
precursor
the
substances
with
charge
intent
that
to
Wallace
unlawfully
methamphetamine.
S e c t i o n 2 0 - 2 - 1 8 1 ( d ) , A l a . Code 1975, a d d r e s s e s p r e c u r s o r
c h e m i c a l s and s t a t e s :
" U n t i l t h e B o a r d o f Pharmacy a d o p t s a r u l e
d e s i g n a t i n g l i s t e d p r e c u r s o r c h e m i c a l s , as r e q u i r e d
by
subsection (a), the f o l l o w i n g
chemicals or
30
CR-10-1464
substances
chemicals:
are
"(1) A c e t i c
hereby
listed
precursor
anhydride;
"(2) A n t h r a n i l i c
"(3) B e n z y l
deemed
acid
and i t s s a l t s ;
cyanide;
"(4) E p h e d r i n e , i t s s a l t s , o p t i c a l i s o m e r s , and
s a l t s of o p t i c a l isomers;
"(5) E r g o n o v i n e
and i t s s a l t s ;
"(6) E r g o t a m i n e
and i t s s a l t s ;
"(7)
Hydriodic
acid;
"(8)
Isosafrol;
"(9)
Methylamine;
"(10)
N-Acetylanthranilic
"(11) N o r p s e u d o e p h e d r i n e ,
i s o m e r s , and s a l t s o f o p t i c a l
"(12)
Phenylacetic acid
acid
and i t s s a l t s ;
i t s salts,
isomers;
and i t s s a l t s ;
"(13) P h e n y l p r o p a n o l a m i n e ,
i t ssalts,
i s o m e r s , and s a l t s o f o p t i c a l i s o m e r s ;
"(14)
Piperidine
"(17)
Safrole;
optical
and i t s s a l t s ;
"(15)
Pseudoephedrine,
i s o m e r s , and s a l t s o f o p t i c a l
"(16)
optical
i t s salts,
isomers;
optical
and
3,4-Methylenedioxyphenyl-2-propanone."
31
CR-10-1464
Although the S t a t e p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y t h a t Wallace had
in
h i s p o s s e s s i o n v a r i o u s components t h a t
methamphetamine-manufacturing
process,
were u s e d
such
as
i n the
camp
fuel,
rubber hosing, c o f f e e f i l t e r s ,
r a g s , and a box o f s a l t ,
of
chemicals
those
statute,
items
and
are precursor
no
witness
testified
none
as d e f i n e d i n t h e
otherwise.
The
only
e v i d e n c e t h a t m i g h t have s u g g e s t e d t h a t a p r e c u r s o r c h e m i c a l
was p r e s e n t was E.T.'s s t a t e m e n t t h a t she h a d p r e v i o u s l y
Wallace put p i l l s
to
i n the p l a s t i c
a handful of p i l l s
proof
that
statute.
liquid
a t some p r i o r
a t the time
pseudoephedrine
bottle.
i n the b o t t l e
substances
was
Wallace
insufficient
possessed
o r any o t h e r p r e c u r s o r c h e m i c a l l i s t e d i n t h e
D e t . Schlemmer t e s t i f i e d
decongestant.
However, r e f e r e n c e
time
of h i s a r r e s t
seen
was
that the red t i n t
consistent
with
Sudafed
to the
brand
No d o u b t t h e r e a r e numerous r e d p i l l s a n d o t h e r
that Wallace
c o u l d have p l a c e d i n t h e b o t t l e a n d
t h a t c o u l d have r e s u l t e d i n t h e r e d - t i n t e d l i q u i d found i n t h e
b o t t l e a t the time o f Wallace's a r r e s t .
The S t a t e p r e s e n t e d
no p a c k a g i n g , r e c e i p t s o f p u r c h a s e , o r any o t h e r e v i d e n c e t h a t
w o u l d have a l l o w e d t h e j u r y t o c o n c l u d e
that Wallace placed
any n e c e s s a r y p r e c u r s o r , i n c l u d i n g p s e u d o e p h e d r i n e
32
o r Sudafed,
CR-10-1464
into
the b o t t l e .
S u d a f e d was
a red p i l l
not c o n s t i t u t e
was
As W a l l a c e a r g u e d a t t r i a l ,
and t h a t t h e w a t e r was
the f a c t
that
tinted red d i d
s u f f i c i e n t proof t h a t the water i n the b o t t l e
r e d b e c a u s e he h a d p l a c e d S u d a f e d i n i t .
The
State
p r o v i d e d an
incomplete
chain
of
facts
and
r e s o r t e d t o s p e c u l a t i o n and c o n j e c t u r e i n an a t t e m p t t o p r o v e
t h a t W a l l a c e had,
i n f a c t , p l a c e d pseudoephedrine, which the
S t a t e ' s e x p e r t w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d was a n e c e s s a r y i n g r e d i e n t i n
the
manufacturing
plastic
bottle.
defendant
is
process
A jury
guilty
beyond
that
incomplete
chain of f a c t s
on
such
methamphetamine,
inside
the
i s not p e r m i t t e d t o conclude t h a t
inferences
rely
are
of
a
reasonable
unsupported
unsupported
in this
by
doubt
evidence.
based
The
and
on
State's
case r e q u i r e d the j u r y
inferences
a
speculation.
to
The
S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e , when v i e w e d i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o
the State,
was
not s u f f i c i e n t
f o r a jury to reasonably f i n d
t h a t the evidence e x c l u d e d every reasonable h y p o t h e s i s except
that
of g u i l t .
See
L o c k h a r t v.
(Ala.
Crim.
App.
1997),
1190,
1191
( A l a . Crim.
State,
715
q u o t i n g Ward v.
App.
1992).
The
So.
State,
State
2d 895,
610
899
So.
2d
failed
to
p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e t h a t w o u l d a l l o w t h e j u r y t o f i n d , b e y o n d
33
CR-10-1464
a reasonable
doubt, t h a t Wallace possessed p r e c u r s o r
w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o m a n u f a c t u r e methamphetamine.
chemicals
Therefore,
v e r d i c t b a s e d on § 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 1 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) c o u l d n o t be u p h e l d ,
the
trial
c o u r t e r r e d when i t d e n i e d
Wallace's
a
and
motion f o r a
j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l as t o t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e o f t h e u n l a w f u l manufacture
2.
charge.
Jury
I
Instruction
would h o l d
Wallace's
motion
alternative
precursor
in
chemicals
thus
to instruct
the
of
e r r e d when i t d e n i e d
acquittal
indictment
the
rendering
the jury,
as p r e c u r s o r s .
as
to the
possession
of
to
manufacture
moot W a l l a c e ' s
argument i n
based
However,
of
intent
-- t h a t t h e t r i a l
1975, as t o t h e s u b s t a n c e s
statute
court
judgment
with
I I I of h i s b r i e f
refused
Code
for a
charge
methamphetamine,
Issue
that the t r i a l
c o u r t e r r e d when i t
on § 2 0 - 2 - 1 8 1 ( d ) , A l a .
that
were
I address
defined
this
by t h e
issue
here
because the m a j o r i t y appears t o h o l d i n P a r t I of i t s o p i n i o n
that
the
possession
State
of
established
precursor
a
prima
chemicals
facie
with
case
the
of the
intent
to
manufacture and then h o l d s i n P a r t I I I o f i t s o p i n i o n t h a t t h e
trial
c o u r t d i d n o t e r r when i t r e f u s e d t o g i v e t h e s t a t u t o r y
34
CR-10-1464
definition
Ala.
of
Code
precursor
chemicals
contained
in §
20-2-181,
1975.
I d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y ' s a n a l y s i s and h o l d i n g .
The i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g e d W a l l a c e w i t h p o s s e s s i n g " p r e c u r s o r
substances,
in
any
amount,
with
the
manufacture a c o n t r o l l e d substance,
intent
to
unlawfully
as d e t e r m i n e d
i n Section
20-2-181 o f t h e Code o f A l a b a m a 1975," b u t t h e i n d i c t m e n t d i d
not
list
any
specific precursor
chemical.
In order
to
find
him g u i l t y u n d e r t h i s c o u n t , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n had t o p r o v e t h a t
he
was
i n possession
of
a precursor
Testimony about the presence
listed
i n the
statute.
o f v a r i o u s components t h a t c o u l d
be u s e d i n t h e m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e - m a n u f a c t u r i n g p r o c e s s , s u c h
as
camp f u e l ,
of
s a l t , was
Det.
hosing,
None
i n the
of
those
statute,
items
and
no
are
r a g s , and
fact,
permitted
and
the
the
t h e r e was
jury
had
d e t e c t i v e was
no
35
chemicals
testified
as
otherwise.
u s e d S u d a f e d t o make
unable
other testimony
t o make t h a t
a box
of a p r e c u r s o r
precursor
witness
Schlemmer i m p l i e d t h a t W a l l a c e
methamphetamine, b u t
that
coffee f i l t e r s ,
n o t t h e same as p r o o f o f t h e p r e s e n c e
chemical.
defined
rubber
finding,
to t e s t i f y
to
t h a t w o u l d have
nor
was
there
any
CR-10-1464
testimony
about
any
other
chemical
that
would
have
been
During the j u r y - c h a r g e conference Wallace asked the
trial
c l a s s i f i e d as a p r e c u r s o r u n d e r § 2 0 - 2 - 1 8 1 .
court
to
instruct
chemicals
by
When
State
the
attorney
they
reading
supposed
to
possessed
list
to
what
of
constitutes precursor
substances
Wallace's
they
decide
20-2-181.
request,
Wallace's
supposed to decide?
i f this
man
possessed
How
a s k them t o d e t e r m i n e
i f we
don't
precursor
are?"
we can s e n d a j u r y
whether or not t h i s
give
them what
3d
majority
in
states,
a
formulating i t s jury
trial
court
charge,
so
has
broad
long
at
I f the
trial
court
refuses
to
r e q u e s t e d j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n , no e r r o r r e s u l t s i f t h e
of the
jury.
App.
charge i s covered
E.g.,
man
precursors
as
c h a r g e a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t s t h e f a c t s and t h e l a w o f t h e
So.
are
311.)
the
discretion
in §
do n o t d e f i n e what p r e c u r s o r c h e m i c a l s
precursors
(R.
As
are
on
He a l s o s t a t e d , " I d o n ' t see how
b a c k t h e r e and
are."
the
"How
i f we
(R. 310.)
jury
objected
asked,
chemicals
the
i n the t r i a l
36
case.
give
1158
a
substance
c o u r t ' s charge to
Weeks v. S t a t e , 611 So. 2d 1156,
1992).
the
the
( A l a . Crim.
CR-10-1464
The
trial
judge here d i d n o t a d e q u a t e l y charge
the jury
on t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e , a n d i t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n when i t
denied Wallace's request that i t l i s t theprecursor substances
i n § 20-2-181, A l a . Code 1975.
The
m a j o r i t y s t a t e s t h a t b e c a u s e t h e j u r y was p r e s e n t e d
w i t h a l t e r n a t i v e ways o f p r o v i n g f i r s t - d e g r e e m a n u f a c t u r i n g a
c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e -- i . e . , b y m a n u f a c t u r i n g methamphetamine
and/or
possessing
manufacture
a
precursor
controlled
chemicals
substance
--
with
intent
any e r r o r
to
i n not
charging the jury with the d e f i n i t i o n of "precursor chemicals"
was
harmless.
1991),
C i t i n g S t a t e v. Bowman, 588 A . 2 d 728, 732 (Me.
the m a j o r i t y states
that
p e r t a i n i n g t o a p a r t i c u l a r charge
the
jury
returns
alternative
A.2d
verdict
charge.'"
a t 732.
majority's
a
W a l l a c e ' s case concerns
with
murder.
The i s s u e
c h a r g e d on m a n s l a u g h t e r .
manslaughter
i n instructions
i s rendered harmless
of g u i l t y
So. 3d
I do n o t b e l i e v e
contention.
"'an e r r o r
to a
where
different
or
, q u o t i n g Bowman, 588
that
Bowman
supports the
Bowman a d d r e s s e d
alternate
alternate proof.
Bowman was c h a r g e d
was w h e t h e r
the jury
charges;
was p r o p e r l y
A l t h o u g h i t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e
c h a r g e was e r r o n e o u s , t h e Bowman c o u r t f o u n d t h a t
37
CR-10-1464
because
the t r i a l
c o u r t had i n s t r u c t e d
the jury
to
first
d e c i d e w h e t h e r Bowman was g u i l t y o f m u r d e r b e f o r e d e c i d i n g h i s
c u l p a b i l i t y f o r manslaughter.
murder;
thus, that
The j u r y f o u n d Bowman g u i l t y o f
court held
that
the error
regarding the
m a n s l a u g h t e r i n s t r u c t i o n was h a r m l e s s b e c a u s e t h e j u r y d i d n o t
consider
So.
2d
the manslaughter
charge.
1212, ( A l a . C r i m .
App.
majority,
the jury
was g i v e n
tampering w i t h governmental
In Deutcsh
1992),
v. S t a t e , 610
also
an e r r o n e o u s
cited
by t h e
instructions
r e c o r d s as c h a r g e d
on
i n § 13A-10-
1 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975. T h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e e r r o r was
harmless
because
governmental
Code
1975.
Deutcsh
was
convicted
r e c o r d s as c h a r g e d
Unlike
Bowman
c o n v i c t e d o f an a l t e r n a t i v e
of tampering
with
i n § 13A-10-12(a)(1), A l a .
and Deutcsh,
Wallace
was n o t
o f f e n s e t o the charged
offense.
Wallace concerns a l t e r n a t i v e proof t o s u b s t a n t i a t e the offense
charged
i n the indictment.
instructed
that
methamphetamine
i t could
In Wallace,
find
guilt
based
the jury
was
on m a n u f a c t u r i n g
(a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e i n S c h e d u l e s I t o V)
or p o s s e s s i o n o f a p r e c u r s o r c h e m i c a l , o r b o t h .
I do n o t
believe
i t could
i t was p r o p e r
to instruct
38
the jury
that
CR-10-1464
r e t u r n a g u i l t y v e r d i c t b a s e d on t h e p o s s e s s i o n
chemical
without
defining precursor
of a precursor
chemical.
"When a t e r m i s i n c l u d e d i n a s t a t u t e r e l e v a n t t o a c a s e ,
and
that
term
necessary
hinges
495,
So.
i s not defined
for the t r i a l
by
statute,
whether
i t
is
court t o d e f i n e t h e term f o r t h e j u r y
on t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e . "
I v e r y v. S t a t e , 686 So. 2d
501-02 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , a f f ' d on r e t u r n t o remand, 686
2d 520 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 ) .
The t e r m , " p r e c u r s o r , " i s
n o t d e f i n e d i n § 13A-12-217, b u t t h a t s t a t u t e r e f e r s t o § 20¬
2-181.
Section
includes
a list
chemicals.
3
20-2-181
does
of chemicals
When i t d e n i e d
instruction,
the t r i a l
court
not define
that
t h e term,
are considered
Wallace's
one
request
f o r the j u r y
noted that there
i s no p a t t e r n
does n o t r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e , h o w e v e r .
t h a t was u n d e r s t o o d b y t h e a v e r a g e
common u s a g e ,
that
would
i t
precursor
j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n d e f i n i n g "precursor," which i s t r u e .
alone,
but
mitigate
That,
I f t h e t e r m was
juror i n h i s or her
against
t h e need
fora
S e c t i o n 2 0 - 2 - 1 8 0 ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : " L i s t e d
Precursor
Chemical.
A chemical
substance
specifically
d e s i g n a t e d as s u c h b y t h e A l a b a m a S t a t e B o a r d o f Pharmacy,
t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n t o l e g i t i m a t e uses, i s used i n the unlawful
manufacture
of a
controlled
substance
or controlled
substances."
3
39
CR-10-1464
definition.
(Ala.
E.g., Thornton
C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) .
v. S t a t e ,
" P r e c u r s o r " i s n o t w i t h i n t h e common
u s a g e o f an a v e r a g e
juror,
common
law-enforcement
usage
demonstrated
of
570 So. 2d 762, 772-73
and i t i s a r g u a b l y n o t w i t h i n t h e
officers,
as
Wallace
i n h i s c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n o f one o f t h e p o l i c e
o f f i c e r s , who was u n a b l e t o name e v e n one p r e c u r s o r n e c e s s a r y
to
the manufacture
Without
a
o f methamphetamine.
definition
possible,
being
and perhaps
provided
likely,
that
(R. 192, 195.)
to the jury,
the jury
i t
found
is
that
W a l l a c e ' s p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e i t e m s such as t h e t u b i n g and t h e
camp f u e l
constituted proof
that
he was i n p o s s e s s i o n o f a
" p r e c u r s o r substance," because t h e S t a t e argued t h a t a l l t h e
components f o u n d i n t h e s e a r c h o f t h e P l u m S t r e e t r e s i d e n c e
were u s e d
jury
i n manufacturing
was n e v e r
instructed
methamphetamine.
that,
i n order
Certainly the
to find
g u i l t y under t h e second a l t e r n a t i v e f o r p r o v i n g
manufacturing
indictment,
of a c o n t r o l l e d
i t would
substance
an
second-degree
as c h a r g e d
i n the
have t o f i n d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e
t h a t Wallace possessed the p r e c u r s o r chemical
Without
Wallace
instruction
as t o what
pseudoephedrine.
substances
constituted
p r e c u r s o r s , t h e j u r y c o u l d n o t be e x p e c t e d t o r e a c h
40
doubt
informed
CR-10-1464
d e c i s i o n a b o u t w h e t h e r W a l l a c e p o s s e s s e d one.
The
a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n when i t r e f u s e d W a l l a c e ' s
instruction.
reference
t h a t the
The
The
e r r o r was
exacerbated
i n i t s j u r y charge to
the t r i a l
c o u r t ' s e r r o r as t o t h e d e n i a l o f t h e
too, p r o v i d e s a b a s i s f o r r e v e r s a l of Wallace's
Therefore,
conviction
for
chemical
majority's
a n a l y s i s of
endangerment
unlawful-manufacture
affirmance
the
issues
conviction,
of t h a t c o n v i c t i o n .
41
and
court's
the
fact
(R.
353.)
j u r y charge,
conviction for
I concur o n l y w i t h the a f f i r m a n c e of
the
jury
substance.
of
d i s c u s s e d i n P a r t I I of the m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n .
the
to
substances.
the u n l a w f u l manufacture of a c o n t r o l l e d
court
requested
§ 20-2-181 and
statute delineated precursor
trial
by
trial
a
Wallace's
child,
I disagree
as
with
r e l a t e d to
Wallace's
I
from
dissent
the
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.