Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Grice v. State
Citation: 481 So. 2d 449
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; November 25, 1985; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Benny P. Grice was indicted for selling marijuana, violating Alabama Code § 20-2-70. The jury found him guilty, resulting in a 15-year prison sentence and a $25,000 fine. Detective Gerard Herring, working undercover on September 28, 1984, was assigned to investigate drug activities in Dothan and was provided with leads, including Grice's name. Herring observed Grice at a residence, selling marijuana from a large bag into smaller bags to customers in line. Herring purchased a bag for $30, referred to Grice as "Benny Man," and later identified him in a photograph provided by Sergeant John White after reporting the incident. The marijuana was secured as evidence, analyzed by criminalist Joseph Saloom, and confirmed to be 15.15 grams of marijuana. The chain of custody for the evidence was maintained throughout the process. At the conclusion of the State's case, the appellant's motions to exclude evidence and for a judgment of acquittal were denied by the trial judge. On appeal, the appellant argues that this denial was erroneous due to alleged deficiencies in the chain of custody regarding the marijuana evidence. Establishing a proper chain of custody is crucial to demonstrate that evidence has not been tampered with, although absolute certainty is not required—only a reasonable probability that the evidence is intact. The court found that a proper chain of custody was established and that the evidence was substantially unchanged, thus affirming the trial court's decision. The appellant also contends that the State failed to establish a prima facie case, arguing the evidence was insufficient for a guilty verdict. The appellate court emphasized that if the evidence raises factual questions for the jury and supports a conviction when viewed favorably for the prosecution, the trial court's decisions to deny acquittal or new trial motions are not errors. The jury was presented with conflicting evidence, which is for them to resolve. Additionally, the appellant challenged the identification circumstances but failed to raise objections during the trial or through pre-trial motions. This oversight precludes any review of the identification issue on appeal. Ultimately, the appellate court found no errors in the trial record and affirmed the trial court's judgment.