State v. Shannon Marie McKean, 356 P.3d 368

In 2012 officers seized various "potpourri" products (street name for synthetic marijuana) from Shannon McKean’s business and home; some products contained JWH-122 and JWH-210, others contained AM-2201.
McKean was indicted on counts of possession with intent to deliver and aiding and abetting delivery of controlled substances; two consolidated indictments proceeded to jury trial.
The State sought a pretrial judicial determination that JWH-122, JWH-210, and AM-2201 were Schedule I synthetic cannabinoids under former I.C. § 37-2705(d)(30); the court found AM-2201 was a controlled substance as a matter of law.
McKean attempted to introduce online "Sample Test" laboratory reports (sent by suppliers) indicating products did not contain synthetic cannabinoids; the district court excluded them as irrelevant/hearsay and as going to mistake of law.
The jury convicted McKean on five counts of possession with intent to deliver and two counts of aiding and abetting delivery; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AM-2201 fell within Schedule I under former I.C. § 37-2705(d)(30)	AM-2201 is a synthetic substance structurally derived from listed parent compounds and therefore a Schedule I synthetic cannabinoid	AM-2201 differs (e.g., involves a haloalkyl) and thus is not covered; ambiguity requires factfinding	Court held AM-2201 is a controlled substance as a matter of law; statute’s "such as" list is nonexclusive and covers similar synthetic derivatives
Admissibility of supplier Sample Test reports	Reports show McKean believed products were not synthetic cannabinoids (mistake of fact) and are therefore relevant	Reports only show belief that products were legal (mistake of law) and are hearsay; irrelevant to identity knowledge	Court held reports were inadmissible: McKean’s own testimony showed she did not rely on them to form a belief about the substance’s identity, so reports were offered to show mistake of law and were irrelevant

State v. Goggin, 157 Idaho 1 (2014) (Legislature intended to ban synthetic marijuana broadly; statutory examples are non‑exclusive)
State v. Alley, 155 Idaho 972 (Ct. App. 2014) (concluded AM-2201 question could be one for the jury; Supreme Court disagreed)
State v. Fox, 124 Idaho 924 (1993) (ignorance of the law is not a defense; exhibits showing ignorance of illegality irrelevant)
State v. Lamphere, 130 Idaho 630 (1997) (evidence showing defendant did not know nature/identity of a substance is relevant to knowledge element)
State v. Kellogg, 102 Idaho 628 (1981) (designation of a substance as controlled under the statute is a question of law for the court)