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.