context: In the present case, appellant argued at trial that the State was required to produce the cocaine she distributed to Trooper Elzey in order to establish that she had committed the offenses charged. This was not a correct statement of law. The nature of the substance distributed to the trooper could have been proved by other, sufficient evidence.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 68 Md.App. 467, 471-2
citation_a.parenthetical: admission by owner of vehicle that substances found in the vehicle were marijuana and cocaine was sufficient evidence upon which to base forfeiture of the vehicle
citation_a.sentence: One 1979 Cadillac Seville v. State, 68 Md.App. 467, 471-2, 513 A.2d 927 (1986) (admission by owner of vehicle that substances found in the vehicle were marijuana and cocaine was sufficient evidence upon which to base forfeiture of the vehicle).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 79 Md.App. 241, 255
citation_b.parenthetical: recognizing that identity of a substance as cocaine may be proved by circumstantial evidence
citation_b.sentence: See also Best v. State, 79 Md.App. 241, 255, 556 A.2d 701 (1989) (recognizing that identity of a substance as cocaine may be proved by circumstantial evidence).