391 P.3d 1079
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Mike’s Smoke, a St. George tobacco shop, sold a product labeled “Reborn” marketed as "aroma therapy"; undercover buys and store admissions led police to suspect it was a synthetic cannabinoid (spice).
- Forensic testing of seized Reborn packets showed the presence of XLR11, a compound the State Crime Lab reported was a structural analog of the listed controlled substance AM-694.
- St. George City revoked Mike’s business license and ordered it to close after concluding the store sold a controlled substance analog; Mike’s produced expert letters disputing structural similarity but did not test the seized product.
- Mike’s sought judicial review; the district court remanded for an evidentiary hearing, which this court later reversed and required consideration under the proper standard of review; on remand the district court affirmed the City Council’s revocation.
- On appeal Mike’s argued the Utah Controlled Substance Analog Statute must be read conjunctively (structure plus effect/representation) to avoid absurd or constitutional problems; the City and courts read the statute disjunctively (structure or effect or representation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of the Controlled Substance Analog Statute (disjunctive vs. conjunctive) | The statute should be read conjunctively (A and (B or C)) to avoid absurd or constitutional results | The statute is unambiguous and must be read disjunctively (A or B or C); legislative history shows intent to change to disjunctive | The statute is unambiguous and reads disjunctively; courts must apply plain meaning |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Educ. of Jordan School Dist. v. Sandy City Corp., 94 P.3d 234 (Utah 2004) (standard for reviewing statutory interpretation)
- Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch P’ship, 267 P.3d 863 (Utah 2011) (plain language controls; canons used only when ambiguity exists)
- Utley v. Mill Man Steel, Inc., 357 P.3d 992 (Utah 2015) (distinguishes absurd consequences canon from absurdity doctrine)
- Utah Dep’t of Transp. v. Carlson, 332 P.3d 900 (Utah 2014) (use of constitutional avoidance only when statute is ambiguous)
- In re Z.C., 165 P.3d 1206 (Utah 2007) (applying plain language to absurd-results inquiry in the context actually applied)
- Ringwood v. State, 333 P.2d 943 (Utah 1959) (rule that an "or" in a series applies to whole series)
- Bailey-Allen Co. v. Kurzet, 945 P.2d 180 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (litigant cannot take inconsistent positions on appeal)