Lee v. State

I respectfully disagree with my learned colleagues in their treatment of this case.

My disagreement is predicated upon the sole assignment of error pertaining to the *915learned trial court’s refusal to charge the timely submitted special request on inferences. See T.C.A. § 52-1432 (a) (2).

It is my position that the defendant, Roger Lee, had to possess the marihuana in order to sell it. He could not have sold the marihuana without possessing it. Hence, the evidence has clearly raised the issue of possession; and it is for the jury, in its wisdom, to determine with what intent the marihuana was…