Vaughn v. State

Criminal Law — Poisons — Narcotics — Unlawful Sale — Statute Controlling — Evidence — Sufficiency — Exhibits — Admissibility — Preliminary Proof — Appeal. Narcotics — Illegal Sale — Statute Controlling — Information — Sufficiency. 1. Held, that section 3189, Revised Codes of 1921, enacted in 1921 as section 1, Chapter 202, Laws of 1921, prohibiting the sale, inter alia, of coca leaves or a derivative thereof, supersedes section 3186, enacted in 1911, and section 11239, enacted in 1895, so far as it comprehends or conflicts with the subject matter of the two latter sections, and that the trial courts holding that an information charging Page 82 the unlawful sale "of cocaine, a derivative of coca leaves" was based upon that section was correct. Same — "Cocaine" — Nature of Drug — Evidence — Sufficiency. 2. In a prosecution for the unlawful sale of "cocaine, a derivative of coca leaves," a chemist testified for the state that cocaine is an active alkaloid of the coca leaf but did not state that it was a derivative thereof. Held, in answer to the contention that in failing to so testify the state had not proved its case, that an alkaloid of the leaf necessarily is a derivative thereof, and that the contention has no merit. Same — Exhibits — Admissibility in Evidence — Proof Required. 3. To render an exhibit (a package of cocaine sold to an officer and kept in a vault until trial) admissible in evidence, the state was required to do no more than to identify it and make a prima facie showing that there had been no substantial change in it since it was obtained, it not being incumbent upon the prosecution to prove by affirmative testimony that it could not have been tampered with. Same — Judgment of Conviction not Reversible for Technical Error in Admitting Unimportant Testimony. 4. Under the rule that the supreme court will not reverse a judgment of conviction for mere technical irregularities not affecting injuriously the substantial rights of appellant, for alleged error in overruling objections to several questions claimed to have been leading but which were of no special importance but merely explanatory in character, a new trial will not be ordered.