Jones v. Commonwealth, 331 S.W.3d 249

Appellant Rachel Jones was convicted in Laurel Circuit Court of multiple felony drug trafficking offenses involving marijuana and Schedule IV pharmaceuticals.
Two controlled buys were conducted by informant Stanley Howard under Detective Brian Lewis: Jan 22, 2007 (marijuana and alprazolam) and Mar 19, 2007 (clonazepam and alprazolam).
Lab testing confirmed clonazepam and marijuana; alprazolam was visually identified using the Identidex database without chemical testing.
Appellant was charged with three trafficking counts (marijuana, alprazolam, and alprazolam/clonazepam combined) and sentenced to an aggregate 15 years.
On appeal, the core issue was whether chemical testing is required to prove a controlled-substance trafficking conviction when some substances are identified visually.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court of Kentucky granted review to address whether a conviction may be sustained without chemical testing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether chemical testing is required to convict for trafficking in a controlled substance.	Jones; lack of testing undermines proof of alprazolam.	Commonwealth; circumstantial evidence suffices to identify drugs.	Circumstantial evidence can suffice; no directed-verdict error.
Whether the alprazolam and clonazepam charges required unanimity given different theories of guilt.	Unanimity was lacking since one theory was unsupported.	Two offenses supported by evidence; no unanimity violation.	No unanimity violation; sufficient evidence for both charges.
Whether admission of video evidence showing other drug dealings constitutes palpable error.	Evidence of other acts improperly prejudicial.	Any error non-palpable; not outcome-determinative.	Not palpable error; no reversible impact.

Miller v. Commonwealth, 512 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1974) (rejected requirement of laboratory testing for drug identity; circumstantial proof acceptable)
Howard v. Commonwealth, 787 S.W.2d 264 (Ky. App. 1989) (circumstantial/visual identification permissible when substance presumed by form of sale)
United States v. Dolan, 544 F.2d 1219 (4th Cir. 1976) (lay and circumstantial evidence may identify a drug without lab analysis)
United States v. Schrock, 855 F.2d 327 (6th Cir. 1988) (recognizes circumstantial proof to identify drugs when testing is unavailable)
Wright (United States v. Wright), 16 F.3d 1429 (6th Cir. 1994) (circumstantial proof must be substantial and competent; not mere guesswork)