The state is not required to prove that the defendant knew that the cocaine in his possession weighed 28 grams or more."). See also Insley v. State, 591 So.2d 589, 591 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991) ("In a prosecution for trafficking in marihuana, the State need not prove that the defendant knew the weight of the marihuana proved to be in the defendant's possession."). This Court has also stated that the State must prove only that the defendant was knowingly in possession of a quantity of the illegal substance exceeding the quantity required under the trafficking statute.
He argues that the evidence in the record establishes that he was in possession of 32.546 grams and that, under these facts, possession was not a lesser offense. Willingham relies on Insley v. State, 591 So.2d 589 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991). In Insley, the court held that the trial court properly refused the appellant's request, in his trial for trafficking in marijuana, that the jury be instructed on the offense of first-degree possession of marijuana as a lesser offense of trafficking.
The state is not required to prove that the defendant knew that the cocaine in his possession weighed 28 grams or more."). See also Insley v. State, 591 So. 2d 589, 591 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) ("In a prosecution for trafficking in marihuana, the State need not prove that the defendant knew the weight of the marihuana proved to be in the defendant's possession."). This Court has also stated that the State must prove
Way v. State, 475 So.2d 239, 241 (Fla. 1985)."Insley v. State, 591 So.2d 589, 590-591 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991) (some citations omitted; emphasis added). In order to present a prima facie case of trafficking in cocaine, the State must prove that the defendant was knowingly in actual or constructive possession of 28 grams or more of cocaine.Korreckt v. State, 507 So.2d 558 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986).
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991); Ex parte Bird, 594 So.2d 676 (Ala. 1991). See also Insley v. State, 591 So.2d 589 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). In the present case, the trial court conducted an extensive hearing on the matter and has returned the following findings of fact and conclusions to this court:
On original submission, this case was remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609 (1987). Insley v. State, 591 So.2d 589, 690 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). At that hearing, the appellant's counsel, who was not trial counsel and who admitted that he was not present for the jury voir dire and the selection of the jury, argued that the prosecution used its peremptory strikes against two of the three black veniremembers.