People v. Mooring
A143470M
Cal. Ct. App.Oct 23, 2017Background
- In 2011 police searched the home of Lanita Davis and Darrell Mooring Sr.; they seized over 4,000 prescription pills, some in bottles labeled to Davis, Darrell Jr., or Mooring Sr. and some unlabeled.
- Criminalist Shana Meldrum used the subscription, login‑controlled Ident‑A‑Drug website to presumptively identify pills (no chemical testing); she identified large quantities of dihydrocodeinone (Vicodin), oxycodone, diazepam, methadone, morphine, and codeine.
- Jury convicted Davis and Darrell Jr. of multiple counts of possession for sale (Health & Safety Code § 11351 and § 11375); Davis received probation with jail time; Darrell received a 10‑year sentence including two § 11370.2 enhancements and his Romero motion was denied.
- Defendants appealed arguing (1) improper admission of Davis’s 2003 statements to police (Miranda/Crawford/1101/352); (2) Meldrum’s testimony about Ident‑A‑Drug was inadmissible hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause; (3) insufficient evidence (no chemical testing), particularly Count One (dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin); and (4) sentencing errors (§ 11370.2 enhancement and Romero denial).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed in large part but reversed Count One (possession of dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin) because the prosecution failed to prove that dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin is a controlled substance under the schedules (§§ 11055/11056), and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Admission of Davis’s 2003 statements (Miranda / Crawford / Evid. Code 1101 & 352) | Statements showed Davis’s intent to sell; admissible under Evid. Code §1101(b) and not unduly prejudicial under §352; any Miranda/Crawford error was harmless | Statements were involuntary/Miranda violated; Crawford confrontation problem for Darrell; admission prejudicial | Even assuming Miranda/Crawford error, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; admission under §1101(b) and §352 not an abuse of discretion. |
| 2) Admissibility of Ident‑A‑Drug content (hearsay / Evid. Code §1340) | Ident‑A‑Drug is a published compilation generally used and relied on in the crime lab’s business; falls within Evid. Code §1340 exception | Website content is hearsay; unreliable internet source (citing Franzen/Stamps/other jurisdictions) and should not be admitted without chemical testing | Ident‑A‑Drug is a published compilation under Evid. Code §1340 here (subscription, FDA/manufacturer sources, routine reliance by lab); admissible; |
| 3) Confrontation Clause re: Ident‑A‑Drug (testimonial hearsay) | Content is nontestimonial (compiled for reference, not to create evidence for prosecution); Meldrum testified and was cross‑examined | If testimonial (like lab certificates), admission would violate Crawford/Melendez‑Diaz/Bullcoming | Ident‑A‑Drug content is nontestimonial (not created with formal solemnity or primarily for prosecution); no Confrontation Clause violation. |
| 4) Sufficiency of evidence re: identity of drugs (no chemical testing) and Count One (dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin) | Circumstantial evidence and expert visual/compilation‑based ID suffice for most drugs; for dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin, prosecution argued it is the same as hydrocodone or otherwise shown to be a controlled substance | Without chemical proof or expert testimony tying the name to a scheduled substance, jury could not find the substance is a scheduled controlled substance | Chemical testing is not per se required for most counts (evidence sufficient for oxycodone, methadone, morphine, codeine, diazepam). But Count One reversed: prosecution failed to prove dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin is a scheduled controlled substance under §§11055/11056, so conviction on Count One must be reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (recognition of testimonial hearsay and confrontation right)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (lab certificates can be testimonial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (surrogate testimony cannot replace primary analyst where report is testimonial)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (two‑step test: hearsay analysis then testimonial/confrontation analysis)
- People v. Davis, 57 Cal.4th 353 (prosecution must prove an unlisted chemical is a scheduled controlled substance; chemical/competent evidence required)
- People v. Franzen, 210 Cal.App.4th 1193 (limits on treating internet databases as published compilations)