Commonwealth v. Mohamud
15 A.3d 80
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- Mohamud was convicted of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance under the Pennsylvania Act.
- The charged substance was khat (catha edulis), containing cathinone, a Schedule I substance.
- Khat was found in packages retrieved from a UPS Store; Mohamud admitted possession and intent to deliver khat.
- Cathinone is listed in 28 Pa.Code § 25.72(b)(6)(xxvi) as a Schedule I substance; khat itself is not named but contains cathinone.
- Defense argued § 25.72(b)(6)(xxvi) is vague and fails fair warning to khat possessors; Commonwealth argued the statute clearly covers materials containing cathinone.
- Court held the statute is clear and that conviction can stand if the defendant knew the khat contained a controlled substance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 25.72(b)(6)(xxvi) adequately warn about khat? | Mohamud: khat not named; statute vague; lack of fair warning. | Mohamud: ordinary people cannot know khat contains cathinone. | Statute provides fair warning; khat-containing materials fall within the statute. |
| Is applying the regulation to khat consistent with fair warning doctrine? | Mohamud: lack of explicit khat reference undermines due process. | Mohamud: not explicit but contains cathinone; ordinary intelligence should read the statute as covering such materials. | Constitutional as applied; warning is sufficient given the chemical contents and context. |
| Was there sufficient evidence Mohamud knew khat was illegal and possessed it with intent to deliver? | Commonwealth needed to prove Mohamud knew khat contained a controlled substance. | Mohamud knew khat was illegal; need not know chemical name. | Sufficient evidence showed Mohamud knew khat was illegal and possessed it with intent to deliver. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rambo, 488 Pa. 334 (Pa. 1980) (requires mens rea for possession of a controlled substance)
- Commonwealth v. Valette, 531 Pa. 384 (Pa. 1992) (requires knowing or intentional possession)
- Sweeting, 364 Pa. Super. 626 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987) (knowledge of general illegality suffices; need not know chemical identity)
- Hussein, 351 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2003) (fair warning analysis for khat cases; knowledge of illegality relevant)
- Caseer, 399 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 2005) (cathinone obscurity; warns about latent vagueness in schedules)
- Abdulle, 564 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (sufficiency of knowledge requirement for possession)
- Hassan, 578 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirms knowledge-based conviction despite missing plant nomenclature)