People v. Davis
57 Cal. 4th 353
Cal.2013Background
- On Dec. 31, 2009, defendant Zachary Davis sold two blue pills to an undercover officer; 19 additional pills were found nearby. Defendant was charged with sale and possession for sale of a controlled substance under Health & Safety Code §§ 11379, 11378, and § 11377.
- A criminalist tested the pills and identified them as “M.D.M.A. or Ecstasy” in a lab report listing the chemical name 3,4‑methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); no expert testified about MDMA’s chemical relationship to listed controlled substances or its pharmacological effects.
- MDMA is not listed in California’s controlled‑substance schedules; the statutory scheme controls listed substances and their analogs (§§ 11054–11058; § 11401 defines analogs by chemical similarity or similar effects).
- The trial jury was instructed and returned guilty verdicts referencing “Methylenedioxymethamphetamine” and “Ecstasy”; defendant received probation with 90 days jail.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed after taking judicial notice of scientific treatises to conclude MDMA is chemically related to methamphetamine/amphetamine; the Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court reversed: chemical name alone (MDMA) is insufficient to prove the substance is a controlled substance or an analog; the People must present evidence or stipulation that MDMA contains or is an analog of a listed substance or has substantially similar effects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MDMA may be proved a controlled substance by its chemical name alone | The chemical name 3,4‑methylenedioxymethamphetamine implies it contains methamphetamine/amphetamine; jury may infer from common sense and nomenclature | A chemical name not listed in the schedules is insufficient; the People failed to prove MDMA contains or is an analog of a listed drug | Chemical name alone is insufficient; prosecution must introduce evidence or stipulation that MDMA contains a listed substance or meets the analog definition |
| Whether appellate judicial notice of scientific treatises can substitute for proof at trial | Treatises show MDMA is a derivative of amphetamine/methamphetamine, supporting the verdict | Judicial notice of such facts cannot supply missing proof that was not presented to the jury | Appellate judicial notice cannot be used to affirm a conviction when the prosecution failed to prove those facts to the jury |
| Whether jurors may rely on common knowledge/common sense to infer controlled‑substance status from a chemical name | The jury could reasonably infer from the name that MDMA contains methamphetamine/amphetamine | The chemistry is not common knowledge; complex chemical nomenclature requires expert proof | Facts about complex chemical composition are not within common knowledge; proof is required |
| Whether the People satisfied the statutory element that the substance be a listed drug or analog | The lab report identifying MDMA sufficed to meet the element | Identification of MDMA alone does not satisfy the element | Identification of MDMA without testimony that it contains or is an analog of a listed substance fails to prove the statutory element |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Silver, 230 Cal.App.3d 389 (court upheld convictions where prosecution experts testified MDMA was chemically similar to methamphetamine)
- People v. Becker, 183 Cal.App.4th 1151 (court sustained conviction where expert testimony addressed MDMA’s chemical content and effects)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Peevy, 17 Cal.4th 1184 (appellate courts may not rely on facts not presented to the jury)
- People v. Medina, 27 Cal.App.3d 473 (if a substance is expressly listed by an accepted name, it is a controlled substance as a matter of law)