Reference no: EM133034183
Defendant Dave has been charged with larceny of a dangerous drug.
The statute under which Dave is being prosecuted defines "dangerous drug" as including "any opium derivative."
At trial, the following evidence was introduced without objection: (1) the store owner, Walt, saw someone of Dave's general height and build enter Walt's drug store, stand near the prescription desk eating a candy bar, reach behind the counter, grab two bottles, and flee by car; (2) Walt could not positively identify Dave as the thief; (3) the police officer who arrested Dave gave chase to Dave's car when she saw it leave the drug store parking lot at high speed and as Dave's car crossed over a bridge, she saw two objects thrown from Dave's car window into the river below.
The state has offered the testimony of Walt, who stated that the bottles taken by Dave were labeled "OPD," the bottles were the original labeled containers received from the supplier, and the bottles had not been opened.
The state has also offered the testimony of Dr. Buzz, a dentist, who stated that, based upon a comparison of legally obtained impressions of Dave's teeth and a cast of the half-eaten candy bar which Walt identified as having been left behind by the thief, the bite in the candy bar was made by Dave's teeth.
Finally, the state has offered the testimony of Cathy, the cashier who was working at Walt's on the day of the theft, stating that she heard a woman yell ,
"Hey, Dave, come back! Don't leave me!" as the car sped out of the lot following the theft, and then saw a woman running away.
The state has made a motion that the court take judicial notice that "OPD" is a derivative of opium. In support of its motion, the prosecution calls to the court's attention a standard pharmacological dictionary, which defines "OPD" as an opium derivative.
1. Discuss objection(s) which may be made to Walt's testimony.
2. Discuss objection(s) which may be made to Dr. Buzz's testimony.
3. Discuss objection(s) which may be made to Cathy's testimony.
4. How should the judge rule on the prosecution's motion for judicial notice?