testimony that substance a special agent purchased was "MDA" was held insufficient evidence that defendant possessed and sold "3, 4-methylenedioxyamphetamine" as charged in bills of indictment
How later courts described this case
- testimony that substance a special agent purchased was "MDA" was held insufficient evidence that defendant possessed and sold "3, 4-methylenedioxyamphetamine" as charged in bills of indictment
- testimony that substance a special agent purchased was “MDA” insufficient evidence that defendant possessed and sold “3, 4-methylenedioxyampheta-mine” as charged in bills of indictment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
concurring.
For the reasons stated in State v. Stanley, 288 N.C. 19 , 215 S.E. 2d 589 (1975), I concur in result.
Justices COPELAND and Britt join in this concurring opinion.