P. v. Copeland
Defendant Barbara Copeland challenges her conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale and transportation of methamphetamine. She contends the identity of a confidential informant (CI) should have been disclosed. She further contends the court wrongly sustained a hearsay objection and wrongly instructed the jury about the required union of act and knowledge. Court affirm. The CIs identity was immaterial, the objected-to question called for inadmissible hearsay, and the court correctly instructed the jury that the charged offenses require defendants knowledge of the methamphetamines presence and its illegal character.
Comments on P. v. Copeland