R. v. Naugler, 1994 ABCA 110
[7] The issue whether the quantity of drugs in question was sufficient to support a finding that the possession was for the purpose of trafficking was never placed before the learned trial judge. At trial, defence counsel admitted that the only issue before the Court was the question of the legality of search and seizure. After cross-examining the experts in the context of the voir dire on the issue of their opinion as to the purpose of the possession, defence counsel advised the Court that he had no submissions to make on the question of the conviction.
[8] In any event, there is more than ample evidence to support the finding that the drugs were in the possession of the appellant for the purpose of trafficking. There is nothing in the evidence of either expert to support the suggestion of counsel for the appellant that the experts based their opinions on the contents of the statement of the accused which was not admitted in evidence. In any event the witnesses were in the courtroom with the express consent of counsel for the defence. Both testified as to the basis of their opinion and this basis was the quantity of the drugs found in the possession of the appellant being 60.8 grams, with a value, in their opinion, between $6,000 to $9,000. This amounted to a 173-day supply of the drug for the ordinary user. A qualitative analysis in these circumstances was not necessary to establish value.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire