By Sarah Abfalter
The trial resumed for a West Sacramento man faced with multiple charges, including drug possession with the intent to sell and possession of weapons in furtherance of a crime. Melvin George Humphrey was arrested back in July of 2014, after police searched his home and found 16 pounds of processed marijuana, 7 pounds of concentrated cannabis, 7 grams of methamphetamine, and 3 firearms.
On day two of the trial, Deputy District Attorney Kyle Hasapes called West Sacramento Police Department Officer Alisha Slater, working as an agent with the Yolo County Narcotics Enforcement Task Force (YONET), to the witness stand. After establishing Officer Slater’s credentials, Hasapes questioned her extensively regarding her knowledge and expertise relating to common dosages for marijuana, methamphetamine and concentrated cannabis in an effort to establish that Humphrey had the intent to sell, and that the drugs were not for his personal use, as the defense has argued.
When asked whether or not it was common for individuals who are caught possessing drugs to claim it was just for personal use, Officer Slater replied “every single person we catch, the first thing out of their mouth is ‘it’s for personal use.’” However, when asked about the highest dosage of methamphetamine Officer Slater had ever seen in a case of personal use, Slater replied it was about 7 grams, the exact amount found in Humphrey’s home.
In addition to the drugs and firearms found in the Humphrey home, Officer Slater detailed other unique items of circumstantial evidence that were found inside the home, including two digital scales, security cameras, packaging materials, a “pay/owe” sheet, and a total of $11,286 in cash, some of which was stored in heat-sealed envelopes inside a safe. It was also pointed out that the home had a system of security cameras.
At the end of her testimony, Officer Slater stated that, while she believed the drugs present in the home were also for personal use, the drugs ultimately were possessed with the intent to sell. Before the end of the prosecution’s questioning, Slater emphasized that it was “very common on the street” for individuals to be users as well as dealers, and that, in fact, she saw it in about 90 percent of her cases.
During cross-examination, defense attorney Anthony Palik attempted to show that the circumstantial evidence in this case was being misconstrued by the prosecution and police in order to fit their theory of the crime. Palik displayed photos of money found inside a woman’s purse, as well as in a nightstand, and asked Officer Slater if money in a purse or in a nightstand was really proof that someone was selling drugs.
Further, Palik questioned Slater’s claim that security cameras are circumstantial evidence of a drug operation by asking if she recalled a large boat in the driveway of Humphrey’s house, at which one of the cameras was pointed. However, Slater said she did not recall seeing one.
Palik also questioned Slater on the presence of pit bull puppies in the Humphrey home, because Humphrey claims a large portion of the cash found in the home was from the sale of purebred puppies. However, Officer Slater again claimed she did not recall. Palik continued to question Slater on how she could not remember the puppies, being that her officers had to move them during the investigation.
Mr. Palik also questioned Slater’s previous testimony about the “pay/owe” sheet. During the prosecution’s questioning, Officer Slater had indicated that a small piece of paper was found inside the safe with three envelopes of cash, with dates and dollar amounts on it. Slater indicated that this was what was referred to as a “pay/owe” sheet and that it was common for drug dealers to keep a pay/owe sheet indicating what their clients owed them.
However, Palik pointed out that the dollar amounts were cumulative, which was evidence that this was a running total and not, in fact, multiple transactions with different people. When asked about this, Slater admitted that it was a good point, but reiterated that it was still her opinion that it was a “pay/owe” sheet.
The trial is expected to go through Friday.
“Slater indicated that this was what was referred to as a “pay/owe” sheet and that it was common for drug dealers to keep a pay/owe sheet indicating what their clients owed them.”
Is a pay/owe sheet a common means of accounting amongst dog breeders ? Don’t laugh. It’s an honest question.