People v. Chatha, 33 N.E.3d 277

In Feb 2012, a confidential informant bought a commercially packaged product labeled “Bulldog Potpourri” from defendant Kuldeep Chatha’s Lexington convenience store; laboratory testing later detected AM-2201 (a synthetic cannabinoid) in samples.
The State charged Chatha with possession with intent to deliver a substance containing AM-2201 (50 grams or more).
Police executed a search warrant and seized numerous jars and unopened boxes of Bulldog Potpourri from the store; laboratory analysis of sampled jars showed AM-2201 and a total tested weight of 58.4 grams.
At a bench trial, Chatha testified he began selling the product after his supplier represented it was legal and after receiving a lab report (for a similar-branded product) stating it did not contain banned chemicals; he said he would have stopped selling it if he had known it was illegal.
The trial court convicted Chatha, finding circumstantial evidence supported that he consciously avoided learning the product’s illegality; he was sentenced to a stayed 180-day jail term and 3 years’ probation.
On appeal, the Fourth District reversed, holding the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chatha knew the product contained a controlled substance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Chatha knew the Bulldog Potpourri he sold contained a controlled substance (AM-2201)	Circumstantial facts (product mostly kept under the counter, sold to adults only, knowledge customers smoked it, prior bans of similar items, price, and marketing) permit an inference of willful blindness/knowledge	Chatha relied on supplier representations and a lab report for a similarly branded product, investigated before selling, complied with prior bans/ordinances, cooperated with police, and lacked any direct notice or expertise to identify molecular compounds	Reversed: evidence insufficient to prove Chatha knew the product contained AM-2201; circumstantial indicators did not remove reasonable doubt as to scienter

People v. Gonzalez, 239 Ill. 2d 471 (discusses sufficiency review standard)
People v. Ortiz, 196 Ill. 2d 236 (knowledge may be proven circumstantially; convictions based on improbable or unconvincing evidence require reversal)
People v. Patel, 996 N.E.2d 1114 (Ill. App. Ct.) (reversed clerk’s conviction selling similarly packaged synthetic potpourri; more difficult to establish knowledge for commercially packaged products)
People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d 92 (trier of fact must consider all evidence, not only that supporting the State’s theory)