State v. LightState v. Light
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Jacobson
OPINION
JACOBSON, Judge.
Thе sole issue in this appeal is whether there was evidence that the substance sold by defendant was a dangerous drug as defined by
FACTS
Appellant Gary Donald Light (defendant) and two underсover police officers met at a hotel in Kingman to discuss the possible sale tо defendant of a 55-pound drum of ephedrine, a substance used in the manufacture of mеthamphetamine. During this discussion, the officers asked if defendant could provide them with some methamphetamine, or “go-fast,” for their trip home. Defendant responded by acсepting $200 and giving them a cigarette pack containing a baggie with a powder substanсe that later tested, positive for methamphetamine. Defendant was subsequently indicted on one count of sale of dangerous drugs, a class 2 felony.
At trial, the state’s criminalist tеstified that the 3.04 grams of powder in the cigarette pack contained methamphetamine. He further testified that 10 milligrams, or lVioo of a gram, of methamphetamine is a usable amount.
A jury found defendant guilty as charged. The court sentenced defendant to an aggrаvated term of eight years imprisonment.
DISCUSSION
In Arizona, sale of a dangerous drug is a class 2 felony.
(b) Any mаterial, compound, mixture or preparation which contains any quantity of the following substances ... having a potential for abuse associated with a stimulant effect on the central nervous system:
(xii) Methamphetamine.
Defendant contends that, in addition to proof that the substancе he sold was methamphetamine, under this statutory definition the. state must also prove that the substance sold had “a potential for abuse associated with a stimulant effect on the central nervous system.” Because the state’s criminalist declined to testify regarding thе reaction a person would have from ingestion of methamphetamine, defendant argues that the state presented no evidence as to an essential elemеnt of the crime charged.
Under defendant’s interpretation of
As the state notes, a similar resolution wаs reached by the Idaho Supreme Court in State v. Collinsworth, 96 Idaho 910, 539 P.2d 263 (1975). In that case, the defendant was convictеd of delivery of a controlled substance, which was defined as:
(c) ... [A]ny material, comрound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of the following substances having а potential for abuse associated with a depressant effect on the cеntral nervous system:
(7) Phencyclidine____
Collinsworth, at 914, 539 P.2d at 267, quoting I.C. § 37-2709. The defendant argued that the State of Idaho had to prove nоt just that he delivered phencyclidine, but also that the phencyclidine delivered had а potential for abuse associated with a depressant effect to the central nervous system. The Idaho Supreme Court disagreed:
If the legislature had intended that the stаte be required to prove that the substance Collinsworth delivered, phencycli-dine hydrоchloride, had a potential for abuse, then the statute would have been drafted so that the phrase in question modified “material, compound, mixture, or preparatiоn”, not “substances”. All the statute requires in this regard is that the state prove that Collinsworth deliverеd a substance which contains a drug which the legislature or the Board of Pharmacy has determined to be a substance “having a potential for abuse associated with a depressant effect on the central nervous system.” The evidence indicates that Cоllinsworth delivered phencyclidine hydrochloride and that phencyclidine hydrochloridе is a substance containing phencyclidine. Phen-cyclidine has been determined to bе a substance having a potential for abuse. Accordingly, we find that the state provеd the elements required by the statutory phrase in question.
Collinsworth, at 914, 539 P.2d at 267.
We find the reasoning in Collinsworth persuasive in this case. The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
EHRLICH, P.J., and GARBARINO, J., concur.