State v. Morgan C. Alley, 318 P.3d 962

Alley operated a head shop selling Spice-like product Twizted Potpourri and was charged after samples tested positive for JWH-019, JWH-210, and AM-2201.
Alley moved to dismiss the indictment arguing AM-2201 was not a controlled substance under the 2011 version of I.C. § 37-2705(d)(30)(ii)(a) and that the statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied.
The district court rejected both challenges, finding AM-2201 encompassed by the statute and that the statute provided fair notice.
Alley pled guilty to manufacturing/delivering a controlled substance and possession of paraphernalia with intent to deliver, with a sentence of ten years and two-year minimums, concurrent.
Alley preserved appeal on the district court’s rulings on the motion to dismiss and motion to reconsider.
The Idaho Court of Appeals held the appeal not moot and affirmed, but on different grounds, focusing on statutory ambiguity and the rule of lenity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of AM-2201 question	State argues issue moot since Alley admitted controlled substances (JWH-019, JWH-210).	Alley argues continuing collateral consequences and potential defense render issue not moot.	Issue not moot; collateral consequences present.
Whether AM-2201 is within former I.C. § 37-2705(d)(30)(ii)(a) as an alkyl	State contends AM-2201 falls within enumerated examples via alkyl substitution.	Alley contends 'alkyl' excludes alkyl halides; AM-2201 is not enumerated.	Ambiguity; narrowly construe to exclude AM-2201 under (ii)(a).
Constitutionality/vagueness as applied	State argues statute provides fair notice when read in context.	Alley contends lack of fair notice due to technical terms and disputes over meaning of 'alkyl'.	Not void for vagueness as applied; proper reading provides fair notice.
Pretrial dismissal sole as a question of law	State contends district court erred by not deciding AM-2201 structure similarity as a matter of law.	Alley urged pretrial dismissal analogous to summary judgment on ultimate fact.	Pretrial dismissal improper; jury must decide ultimate fact.

State v. Manzanares, 152 Idaho 410 (2012) (mootness exceptions for collateral consequences)
State v. Long, 153 Idaho 168 (Ct. App. 2012) (mootness exceptions and review standards)
State v. Barclay, 149 Idaho 6 (2010) (public interest in mootness exceptions)
State v. Hoyle, 140 Idaho 679 (2004) (mootness and live controversy)
State v. Doe, 140 Idaho 271 (2004) (statutory interpretation when language plain)
State v. Palmer, 138 Idaho 931 (Ct. App. 2003) (statutory interpretation framework)
State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654 (1999) (constructing ambiguity and statutory reading)
Jones v. State, 151 Idaho 943 (Ct. App. 2011) (rule of lenity and ambiguity considerations)
State v. Korsen, 138 Idaho 706 (2003) (as-applied vagueness and lenity principles)
State v. Martin, 148 Idaho 31 (Ct. App. 2009) (as-applied vagueness and admissible evidence)
State v. Dewey, 131 Idaho 846 (Ct. App. 1998) (lenity when statute ambiguity exists)
Bradshaw, 155 Idaho 437 (Ct. App. 2013) (lenity not required for every ambiguous reading)