Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutetrialjury instructions
statutetrialappellant

Related Cases

District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617, 57 S.Ct. 660, 81 L.Ed. 843
View Case »
Case v. State of Neb., 381 U.S. 336, 85 S.Ct. 1486, 14 L.Ed.2d 422
View Case »
Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 77 S.Ct. 408, 1 L.Ed.2d 448
View Case »
Com. v. Chermansky, 430 Pa. 170, 242 A.2d 237, 32 A.L.R.3d 1072
View Case »
Bogany v. State, 661 S.W.2d 957
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Doswell v. State, 53 Md.App. 647, 455 A.2d 995

Facts

On July 13, 1981, Baltimore City police officer Mark Labonta observed Parker, a known heroin addict, in a suspicious situation involving another individual. After seeing the police, the other individual dropped an envelope containing heroin, which Labonta retrieved. Upon arresting Parker and searching him, Labonta found a hypodermic syringe in Parker's sock, but no needle or device to attach a needle was found. Parker was charged with multiple offenses, including possession of controlled paraphernalia, and was ultimately convicted on that count.

Labonta saw appellant hand Little Rock an envelope. 'Almost simultaneously,' according to Labonta, the two spotted the unmarked car. Little Rock dropped the envelope and he and appellant walked away, appellant entering a nearby carryout shop. Labonta retrieved the envelope, in which were nine smaller glassine envelopes containing a white powder that Labonta suspected (and a laboratory report later confirmed) to be heroin. Labonta thereupon entered the carryout shop, arrested appellant, and proceeded to search him. In one of appellant's socks, Labonta found a hypodermic syringe (consisting of a barrel and a plunger) and a ten-dollar bill. No needle or connective device by which a needle could be attached to the syringe was found on appellant.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for possession of controlled paraphernalia and whether the trial judge erroneously instructed the jury regarding the charge.

I. The evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for possession of controlled paraphernalia. II. The trial judge erroneously instructed the jury in response to a jury question asking for further explanation of the charge of possessing the hypodermic syringe.

Rule

The relevant statute, Md.Code Ann. art. 27, § 287(d)(i), prohibits possession of controlled paraphernalia, including hypodermic syringes, under circumstances indicating an intention to use them for illegal drug administration.

The relevant statute, upon which count four of the indictment rested, and to which it referred, is Md.Code Ann. art. 27, § 287(d)(i). The statute provides: 'Except as authorized by this subheading, it is unlawful for any person: (d) To possess or distribute controlled paraphernalia which shall mean (i) a hypodermic syringe, needle or other instrument or implement or combination thereof adapted for the administration of controlled dangerous substances by hypodermic injections under circumstances which reasonably indicate an intention to use such controlled paraphernalia for purposes of illegally administering any controlled dangerous substance….'

Analysis

The court determined that the statute's language did not require the syringe to be 'adapted' for use with a needle to constitute illegal possession. The court interpreted the law to mean that possession of a hypodermic syringe alone, regardless of the absence of a needle, was sufficient to indicate an intent to use it for administering controlled substances. The court also found that the jury instructions were clear and correctly stated the law.

The clear thrust and purpose of § 287(d)(i) is to prohibit the possession of devices that are usable for administering controlled substances by hypodermic injection when the circumstances indicate an intent to use them for that purpose. A syringe (barrel and plunger) and a needle fit that description per se. They do not have to be 'adapted' to be usable for hypodermic injection; they merely have to be used.

Conclusion

The court affirmed Parker's conviction, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of possession of controlled paraphernalia and that there was no error in the jury instructions.

We therefore reject appellant's statutory construction argument and find, accordingly, that the evidence sufficed to sustain his conviction.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the court upheld Parker's conviction based on the interpretation of the law regarding possession of paraphernalia.

The State decided to press only four of the eight counts, three involving appellant's alleged possession and attempted distribution of the heroin found in the envelope and the fourth, quoted above, charging the possession of controlled paraphernalia.

You must be