State v. Johnson
Louisiana Court of Appeal
780 So. 2d 403 (2000)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Police detective Michael Lohman suspected that Terrance Johnson (defendant) was engaged in drug activity at a liquor store. Lohman and other officers executed a search warrant at the store and found rock cocaine, crack cocaine, a razor blade, glass tubes, wire mesh, small plastic bags, and several scales. The State of Louisiana (plaintiff) charged Johnson with possession with intent to distribute narcotics and attempted possession with intent to distribute narcotics. At Johnson’s trial, the trial court allowed officer Harry O’Neal to testify as an expert regarding the identification of drug paraphernalia and the use, packaging, and distribution of cocaine. O’Neal testified that he had been a narcotics detective for 12 years, had participated in thousands of narcotics arrests, and had interviewed many drug users and drug dealers. O’Neal testified about the amount of cocaine found by the officers. O’Neal also testified that the scales found in the liquor store were the type of scales commonly used to weigh narcotics before packaging them and that the other items found in the store were commonly used to make crack pipes or to package drugs for sale. The jury found Johnson guilty, and he appealed. Johnson argued that the trial court improperly let O’Neal testify that the items found in the store were consistent with narcotics distribution, because Johnson’s intent to distribute was an ultimate issue of guilt in the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Waltzer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.