State v. Davis, 2011 OK CR 22

Davis, Lemmons, and Pradia were charged with Purchasing in Excess of Nine Grams of Pseudoephedrine within a Thirty Day Period, a misdemeanor under 63 O.S.Supp.2005, § 2-212(A)(2).
The district court sustained demurrers/motions to dismiss, and dismissed the cases, with bar on further prosecution at the State's request.
The State appealed pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2009, § 1053(3).
63 O.S.Supp.2005, § 2-212(A)(2) makes it unlawful to purchase more than nine grams within 30 days without a prescription.
63 O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-309C(F) creates a real-time electronic logbook requirement for sales of pseudoephedrine products, to be implemented by the OK Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control.
The real-time log statute provides conditions that must be met before its reporting requirements apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in holding no offense existed and log requirements were a condition precedent	State contends 2-212(A)(2) independently criminalizes purchases over nine grams; log is not a condition precedent to charging.	Davis et al. argue the log (2-309C(F)) must be in place and implemented before enforcement of 2-212(A)(2).	No; log is not a condition precedent to enforcing 2-212(A)(2).

State v. Duc Hong Pham Tran, 172 P.3d 199 (2007 OK CR 39) (strict construction of criminal statutes; de novo review)
Coddington v. State, 142 P.3d 437 (2006 OK CR 34) (statutory interpretation under fair import of language)