COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 96-1007-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RICHARD ALDRIDGE,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Oneida County:
ROBERT E. KINNEY, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Cane, P.J.,
LaRocque and Myse, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Richard Aldridge appeals his convictions for
conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver THC, possession with intent to
deliver more than 2,500 grams of THC, and possession with intent to deliver
more than 500 grams of THC, after a trial to the court. Aldridge does not deny the charges to the
extent they involve marijuana. Instead,
he argues that the State's failure to prove all of the marijuana contained THC
invalidated his conviction. He points
out that the drug code proscribes THC, not marijuana per se. See § 161.41, Stats. We reject this
argument and affirm his conviction.
At best, Aldridge has
shown that some marijuana may sometimes lack THC. The trial revealed that marijuana seeds or a "seedling"
marijuana plant, described as "a very, very small marijuana plant,"
might lack THC. Conversely, however,
most marijuana does contain THC. At the
same time, the trial showed that each of the charged transactions involved
large quantities of marijuana. Aldridge
dealt in large quantities of marijuana.
These would almost certainly contain much THC bearing marijuana and very
little THC free marijuana. Taken
together, these facts circumstantially proved that Aldridge's marijuana
contained THC. This circumstantial
evidence left no reasonable doubt as to the marijuana's THC content. Circumstantial evidence will sustain a
conviction. State v. Johnson,
184 Wis.2d 324, 346, 516 N.W.2d 463, 470 (Ct. App. 1994). No further THC proof was necessary.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.