People v. Mooring
A143470
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- Police executed a 2011 search of Davis and Mooring Sr.'s home and seized over 4,000 prescription pills; many bottles bore Davis’s or Darrell Mooring Jr.’s names. Darrell later sought return of the pills and was arrested.
- Criminalist Shana Meldrum presumptively identified pills by comparing markings, color, and shape to entries on Ident-A-Drug (a subscription, login-controlled database aggregating FDA and manufacturer data); no chemical testing was performed.
- Jury convicted Davis and Darrell of multiple counts of possession for sale (including counts for dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin, diazepam, codeine, morphine, methadone, oxycodone). Darrell received a 10-year term with enhancements; Davis received probation with jail time.
- Defendants challenged (1) admission of Davis’s 2003 statements to police, (2) Meldrum’s testimony relying on Ident-A-Drug as inadmissible hearsay and a Crawford confrontation violation, and (3) sufficiency of proof that the pills were controlled substances; Darrell also challenged a prior-conviction enhancement and denial of his Romero motion.
- The Court of Appeal held Ident-A-Drug fits the Evidence Code §1340 “published compilation” exception and that its content was non‑testimonial (no Confrontation Clause violation); however, the court reversed Count One (dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin) because the People failed to prove that dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin is a scheduled controlled substance under the relevant statutes, and remanded for resentencing. All other issues and sentences were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Davis’s 2003 statements (Miranda/Crawford/1101/352) | Statements showed Davis’s intent to sell; admissible under Evidence Code §1101(b) and properly admitted; any Miranda/Crawford error harmless. | Statements were involuntary/Miranda-tainted, Crawford violation, and unduly prejudicial under §§1101/352. | Court assumed possible Miranda/Crawford error but found any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; admission under §1101(b) and §352 was proper. |
| Use of Ident-A-Drug (hearsay) | Ident-A-Drug is a published compilation relied on in the lab; §1340 exception applies, so content not inadmissible hearsay. | Ident-A-Drug is an internet database like Entersect (Franzen) and unreliable; hearsay inadmissible. | Ident-A-Drug met §1340 factors (published, compiled from FDA/manufacturers, generally relied upon); testimony admissible. |
| Confrontation Clause re: Ident-A-Drug (Crawford) | Content is non-testimonial (compiled reference for general use), so no Sixth Amendment violation. | If Ident-A-Drug statements are hearsay offered for truth, they are testimonial and violate Crawford/Melendez‑Diaz/Bullcoming. | Court held the Ident-A-Drug material was non‑testimonial (not created for prosecution; lacked required solemnity); no confrontation violation. |
| Sufficiency to prove dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin is a controlled substance | Jury could infer dihydrocodeinone = hydrocodone (a scheduled drug) from labels, testimony, and common usage; no chemical testing required. | Chemical name not listed in schedules; People failed to prove dihydrocodeinone is a scheduled substance—Davis controls that gap. | Following People v. Davis, conviction for dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin reversed because the prosecution failed to prove the substance is within the statutory schedules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez, People v., 63 Cal.4th 665 (clarifies two-step hearsay/testimonial analysis for experts relating case‑specific out‑of‑court statements)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause framework for testimonial statements)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (certificates of analysis can be testimonial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (lab report admitted via surrogate analyst held testimonial)
- Davis, People v., 57 Cal.4th 353 (establishes that prosecution must prove a non‑listed chemical is a scheduled controlled substance; lay inference insufficient)
- Franzen, People v., 210 Cal.App.4th 1193 (distinguishes when an internet database does or does not qualify as a published compilation for hearsay exception)