State v. SlaytonState v. Slayton
Defendants Jimmy T. Slayton, Richard Dwayne Wilder and Jeromе Franklin were charged by bill of information with violation of
The State has appeаled to this Court, relying on Bills of Exceptions Nos. 1 and 3 (pertaining to the constitutional issue) and, in the alternative, Bill of Exceptions No. 2 (pertaining to the trial judge‘s denial of the State‘s motion to introduce evidence) to obtain reversal of the trial court‘s rulings.
Schedule IIIA(2) of
“A. Stimulants. Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another Schеdule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of the following substances having a
stimulant effect on the central nervous system: (Emphasis added) * * * * * *
“(2) Any substance (except an injectable liquid) which сontains any quantity of methamphetamine, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers.”
During the hearing on the motion to quash, defendant‘s expert chemist testified that there are numerous isomers of methamphetamine and that some of these isomers are included in the manufacture of certain commercial compounds sold withоut prescription. Apparently based upon this testimony, the trial court concluded that the phrase “including its ... isomers,” as used in the above statute, is vague, indefinite аnd overly broad because some isomers of methamphetamine are included in “over the counter” preparations. However, Mr. Cooper, a chemist from the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration Laboratory, testified at the hearing that the only isomers of methamphetamine of forеnsic concern are the “D” and “L” isomers. He testified that these are the only two methamphetamine isomers which are potent (or “optically” activе) and which have a stimulant effect upon the central nervous system. All other methamphetamine isomers are inactive and have no effect upon the central nervous system. Mr. Cooper testified that the statute concerns only the “D” and “L” isomers, and it is only these isomers which are reported by chemists with experienсe in the field of controlled dangerous substances.
On appeal, the State contends (Bills of Exceptions Nos. 1 and 3) that the trial judge erred in granting defendant Slaytоn‘s motion to quash and sustaining defendant Wilder‘s motion in arrest of judgment and declaring Schedule IIIA(2) of
On the other hand, defendant Slayton contends that, because Schedule IIIA(2) of
To be constitutionally valid, a penal statute must give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his conduct is criminal.
“Generally the objection that a statute is vague and overbroad may be satisfied by language which provides an adequate warning as to what conduct is рroscribed and which marks boundaries sufficiently distinct for judges and juries to administer the law in accordance with the legislative will. [Citation omitted]
“The requirement of definitenеss need only give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his conduct is criminal. To accomplish this the legislature may employ generic terms. Cumbеrsome enumeration or explicit delineation of all possible situations is not required. `The enumeration in a statute of every item or variation in conduct is frеquently impossible.‘” [Citations omitted]
We are aided in applying the above test to the facts of the present case by
“The articles of this Code cannot be extended by analogy so as to create crimеs
not provided for herein; however, in order to promote justice and to effect the objects of the law, all of its provisions shall be given a genuine construction, according to the fair import of their words, taken in their usual sense, in connection with the context, and with reference to the purpose of the рrovision.” (Emphasis added)
In considering the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law as a whole, as we are obliged to do by
“Schedules I, II, III, IV and V shall, unless and until added to pursuant to
R.S. 40:962 , consist of the following drugs or other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or brand name designated:”
Dr. Cooper testified that the “D” and “L” isomers “are the only isomers that we talk of when we are talking about methamphetamine.” Thus, it is apparent that the common or usual name “methamphetamine, including its ... isomers” refers only to the “D” and “L” isomers.
We conclude that the legislature intended by the usе of the phrase “including its ... isomers” in Schedule IIIA(2) of
Hence, the language of Schedule IIIA(2) of
Since we find merit in the State‘s Bills of Exceptions Nos. 1 and 3 and conclude that Schedule IIIA(2) of
For the reasons assigned, the rulings of the district court in granting defendant Slayton‘s motion to quash and defendant Wilder‘s motion in arrest of judgment are reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed herein.
DIXON, J., concurs.
BARHAM, J., dissents.