High court reverses pot conviction over evidence

National News

The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed the conviction of a Beaverhead County man for criminal distribution of dangerous drugs, saying he was convicted based on insufficient evidence.

The court ruled in a 4-1 decision that state prosecutors presented the testimony of just one witness, who said Anthony James Burwell provided her with marijuana in exchange for baby-sitting his two daughters while he went to work in summer 2011.

Jennifer Jones told authorities that the night before she was supposed to baby-sit, she and Burwell smoked a bowl of a substance she said was marijuana, describing it as "green with orange hairs," according to the opinion written by Chief Justice Mike McGrath.

Jones identified Burwell in a list of "people to narc on" that she wrote while in police custody, McGrath wrote. She gave a vague description of the man and said he lived next door to her friend, according to the opinion.

Officers concluded Jones was referring to Burwell, found that he had a medical marijuana card and charged him in October 2011. He was convicted in district court and sentenced to 10 years, with five years suspended.

"Officers never searched Burwell's residence, never attempted a controlled buy and never discovered any marijuana in his possession," McGrath wrote.

No expert analyzed Jones' description of the substance, no other witnesses backed her testimony and she did not describe the effects of the substance, McGrath wrote.

The evidence was insufficient to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance was a dangerous drug, the chief justice wrote.

Justice Jim Rice dissented, saying that the majority opinion ignores significant circumstantial evidence and that it was up to the jury that convicted Burwell to determine the facts.

Burwell acknowledged that he did not pay Jones cash for baby-sitting and that Burwell and his son were medical marijuana cardholders permitted to grow the drug at home, Rice wrote.

"The testimony here, of a lay witness identifying marijuana from prior experience with the drug, along with the confirming circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to establish the identity of the substance," Rice wrote.

Related listings

  • Planned Parenthood Asks Supreme Court's Help In Texas

    Planned Parenthood Asks Supreme Court's Help In Texas

    National News 11/04/2013

    Planned Parenthood is asking the Supreme Court to place Texas' new abortion restrictions on hold. The group says in a filing with the high court Monday that more than a third of the clinics in Texas have been forced to stop providing abortions since ...

  • Court-martial date set in Naval Academy case

    Court-martial date set in Naval Academy case

    National News 11/04/2013

    A court-martial has been scheduled for February for a U.S. Naval Academy student accused of aggravated sexual assault. Midshipman Josh Tate appeared at an arraignment Monday at the Washington Navy Yard. The court-martial is scheduled to begin Feb. 10...

  • Ride operator appears in court on NC fair injuries

    Ride operator appears in court on NC fair injuries

    National News 10/29/2013

    A carnival ride operator facing assault charges over injuries from a ride at the North Carolina State Fair made his first appearance in court Monday, with a prosecutor saying there are still unanswered questions about what happened. Timothy Dwayne Tu...

Does a car or truck accident count as a work injury?

If an employee is injured in a car crash while on the job, they are eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits. “On the job” injuries are not limited to accidents and injuries that happen inside the workplace, they may also include injuries suffered away from an employee’s place of work while performing a job-related task, such as making a delivery or traveling to a client meeting.

Regular commutes to and from work don’t usually count. If you get into an accident on your way in on a regular workday, it’s probably not considered a work injury for the purposes of workers’ compensation.

If you drive around as part of your job, an injury on the road or loading/unloading accident is likely a work injury. If you don’t typically drive around for work but are required to drive for the benefit of your employer, that would be a work injury in many cases. If you are out of town for work, pretty much any driving would count as work related. For traveling employees, any accidents or injuries that happen on a work trip, even while not technically working, can be considered a work injury. The reason is because you wouldn’t be in that town in the first place, had you not been on a work trip.

Workers’ compensation claims for truck drivers, traveling employees and work-related injuries that occur away from the job site can be challenging and complex. At Krol, Bongiorno & Given, we understand that many families depend on the income of an injured worker, and we are proud of our record protecting the injured and disabled. We have handled well over 30,000 claims for injured workers throughout the state of Illinois.

Business News