Duvall v. State

The defendant's his ignorance of the fact that he was violating the law did not relieve him of criminal intent, since he intended to possess the drugs in question and his admission of possessing the drugs was enough to sustain his convictions.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, James Kevin Duvall appeals his conviction for possessing a controlled substance. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the court erred in admitting a similar transaction and in failing to charge the jury on mistake of fact. Discerning no harmful error, we affirm. Construed in favor of the verdict, Davis v. State ,1 the evidence shows that at 2:30 a.m. on November 27, 2007, Duvall banged loudly on the locked back door of his father’s neighbor’s residence and attempted to open the door. Awoken and terrified by the commotion, the neighbor called 911, resulting in police soon arriving and confronting Duvall as he continued to bang on the door and jiggle the door’s handle. One officer repeatedly commanded Duvall, whose hands were now in his pockets, to show his hands and to step away from the door; Duvall refused to do either. Another officer threatened to shock Duvall with a taser if he did not comply; Duvall remained motionless. After subduing Duvall with the taser, the officers arrested him and conducted a search incident to an arrest, which revealed that Duvall had three prescription sleeping pills which were not prescribed for him loose in his pants pocket.

Duvall was indicted for possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance,2 possessing drugs not in their original container,3 obstruction of an officer misdemeanor,4 and loitering/prowling.5 At trial, Duvall presented evidence showing that he was drunk and that he had willingly received the pills from his aunt for whom they were prescribed earlier in the evening, with her telling him to take the pills for sleeping. He testified that he did not know the pills were a controlled substance and that he thought they were an over-the-counter medication, which testimony constituted his primary defense at trial. The jury found him guilty on all counts, and following sentencing and the denial of his motion for new trial, he appeals.

Duvall v. State

The defendant's his ignorance of the fact that he was violating the law did not relieve him of criminal intent, since he intended to possess the drugs in question and his admission of possessing the drugs was enough to sustain his convictions.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report