15 Cal. App. 5th 928
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- In Jan. 2011 police searched the Richmond home of Lanita Davis and Darrell Mooring Sr.; they seized over 4,000 prescription pills, some in labeled bottles bearing residents' names and some unlabeled.
- Contra Costa crime lab criminalist Shana Meldrum presumptively identified pills by visual comparison to the subscription, login-controlled Ident-A-Drug database (no chemical testing performed); she identified multiple categories including "dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin."
- Jury convicted Davis and Darrell Mooring Jr. of multiple counts of possessing controlled substances for sale (including Count One: dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin) and diazepam; Darrell received a 10-year prison sentence after denial of a Romero motion and imposition of recidivist enhancements.
- Defendants appealed, arguing (a) admission of a 2003 statement by Davis was erroneous, (b) the criminalist’s testimony summarizing Ident-A-Drug was inadmissible hearsay and violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, and (c) the prosecution failed to prove the substances were controlled; Darrell also challenged a prior-conviction enhancement and the Romero denial.
- The court held Ident-A-Drug content falls within the Evidence Code § 1340 published-compilation exception and was non‑testimonial (so no Crawford/Confrontation violation); it found the evidence sufficient for most counts but reversed Count One because the People failed to prove dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin is a scheduled controlled substance under the Health & Safety Code.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 2003 Davis statement | People relied on the statement to show Davis's intent/knowledge | Davis argued the 2003 admission was improper character/propensity or otherwise prejudicial | Court did not reverse on this ground; jury was admonished and conviction otherwise upheld (no reversible error on this issue) |
| Admissibility of Ident-A-Drug content (state hearsay) | Ident-A-Drug is a published compilation generally used and relied upon in lab work; falls under Evid. Code § 1340 | Defendants argued web-source is hearsay and unreliable like Franzen | Court: Ident-A-Drug satisfies § 1340 elements (compiled, published, subscription model, reliable/useful in business) — admission not barred by hearsay rule |
| Confrontation Clause challenge to criminalist relating Ident-A-Drug | Prosecutor: testimony about database is non‑testimonial and witness was cross‑examined | Defendants: Ident-A-Drug content is testimonial case‑specific hearsay (Crawford/Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming) | Court: statements non‑testimonial (compiled for general reference, not created for prosecution) and Meldrum testified and was cross‑examined — no Confrontation Clause violation |
| Sufficiency re: dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin (Count One) | People: dihydrocodeinone referred to as Vicodin/hydrocodone; witnesses used those labels so jury could infer scheduling | Defendants: dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin is not listed in schedules; People failed to prove it is hydrocodone or otherwise a scheduled substance | Court: reversal — People failed to prove dihydrocodeinone/Vicodin is a controlled substance under §§11055/11056; conviction on Count One reversed and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (clarifies hearsay and Confrontation Clause limits on experts repeating case‑specific out‑of‑court statements)
- People v. Davis, 57 Cal.4th 353 (holds chemical name alone is insufficient to prove an unscheduled substance is a controlled substance; prosecution must supply proof that substance meets schedule/analog definition)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (lab certificates can be testimonial and implicate confrontation rights)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (forensic reports admitted without the analyst who prepared them can be testimonial and violate confrontation)
- People v. Franzen, 210 Cal.App.4th 1193 (discusses limits on treating internet databases as § 1340 published compilations)