Title: State v. Benavidez

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

375 P.2d 333 (1962) 71 N.M. 19 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christian BENAVIDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 6953. Supreme Court of New Mexico. October 16, 1962. David F. Cargo, Albuquerque, for appellant. Earl E. Hartley, Atty. Gen., Thomas A. Donnelly, Shirley C. Zabel, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee. FRED J. FEDERICI, District Judge. This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence based upon an information charging the defendant with the unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit, marijuana, under Section 54-7-13, N.M.S.A. 1953, the information alleging further that the defendant was not a person or agency authorized by law to so possess narcotic drugs. Said section provides as follows: This section of law was originally Section 13 of Chapter 145, Laws of 1935, being a general act relating to Narcotic Drugs and providing penalties for violation of the act, which section was amended by Chapter 25, Laws of 1953, the effect of which amendment was merely to increase the penalty for *334 violation of the section. Otherwise, there was no other amendment pertinent to this action. Section 2(15) of the original act (Chapter 145, Laws of 1935) defined "Narcotic Drugs" as follows: It will be noted that the definition did not then include cannabis. Section 2(14) of the same act defined "cannabis" as follows: It will be noted that the original Section 2(14) did not mention "mature stalks" of the plant, nor does it use the word marijuana as such. This Section 2 has been amended by the legislature several times. So far as is material to this action the following amendments are noted: Section 2(15) was amended by Chapter 70, Laws of 1937 to read as follows: It will be noted that the words "and cannabis" were added to the definition of Narcotic Drugs. Section 2(14) was amended by Chapter 96, Laws of 1939, so as to re-define cannabis as follows: It will be noted that the 1939 amendment excluded from the definition "mature stalks" of the plant. Chapter 59, Laws of 1941 re-amended Section 2(14) by eliminating some language not pertinent to this action and correcting the spelling of the word "mature" at one point. Chapter 141, Laws of 1957 re-amended said Section 2 but no changes were made in the definition of Narcotic Drugs or Cannabis. Consequently, the language of said Section 2 defining certain terms, by successive amendments now appears as Section 54-7-2, New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1953 Comp., and Narcotic Drugs and Cannabis are defined, insofar as a prosecution under Section 54-7-13 is concerned, as follows: Section 54-7-2. Definitions. As originally enacted, Section 2, supra, of the general act (Chapter 145, Laws of 1935) dealing with Narcotic Drugs limited the meaning of cannabis to the "dried flowering or fruiting tops" of the plant, from which the resin has not been extracted; the resin extracted from such tops, and compounds, derivative, mixtures etc. therefrom. By Chapter 96, Laws of 1939, the legislature (subsequent amendments not being pertinent) enlarged the definition of cannabis to include all parts of the plant but specifically excluded "the mature stalks of such plant." The definition therefore reads, so far as is pertinent to this action, as follows: The expert who testified in the case, and the only expert attempting to identify the substance in question, testified positively in the trial court as follows, after stating there were several recognized tests that could be used: The brief of the attorney general covers this point of evidence by the following observations: True, the expert identified the substance as marijuana, but he could not under his test identify the substance either as cannabis indica or cannabis sativa L., and it is cannabis sativa L., which must be proven by the state. In this connection the expert was asked the following question: To this question the speculative answer given was as follows: Regardless of whether we have here cannabis indica or cannabis sativa L., or regardless of whether there is any material distinction, (see State v. Navaro, 83 Utah, 6, 26 P.2d 955) the expert based his opinion on a test that gives only positive results from the mature stalk of the plant and his testimony was positive that in his opinion what he examined was the mature stalk. The possession of the mature stalk is not a violation of law in a prosecution under this particular statute Section 54-7-13 under which the state elected to proceed. Nor can the jury be left to speculate if there were parts of the plant other than the mature stalk involved when the only evidence *336 in the case limits itself to mature stalks. This is not a realm in which jurors may, as they sometimes do, call on their common sense to draw inferences from the evidence before them. This is a matter requiring expert opinion as to the analysis of a minute particle of substance. This is not a case dealing with a full plant, or stems or leaves therefrom, which even some laymen may be able to identify by sight, taste or smell. This requires expert analytical testimony before a jury may intelligently and consciously make a finding on the matter. The expert in the instant case honestly told the jury all that he could in his opinion. Marijuana it was, he opined but he is talking about mature marijuana stalk. Whether it was cannabis indica or cannabis sativa L., which may or may not be material, he honestly could not opine. All he could say was that in his opinion there was mature stalk of some kind of cannabis; possession of which mature stalk does not constitute a violation of this particular section of the law under which the state elected to proceed. Consequently, the state failed to establish what is the most vital and material element in the case, namely, the possession of the narcotic drug in question, to-wit: Cannabis sativa L., other than the mature stalk. In passing it might be noted that § 54-5-14, N.M.S.A. 1953 Comp. was enacted by the same legislature that enacted the General Narcotic Act, Chapter 145, Laws of 1935. This section deals with marijuana by name and not narcotic drugs generally; is general in language, and is all inclusive; and makes it a violation of law "to possess * * * cannabis indica, also known as hashish and marijuana, be it known by whatever name, or preparation or derivative thereof." The act, of course, excepts licensed physicians and pharmacists from the applicability thereof. It is fundamental that a conviction of a defendant of a charge of which he has not been proven guilty cannot stand. The case is reversed and remanded to the lower court with instructions that the defendant be discharged of the charges filed against him by the state in the instant information. IT IS SO ORDERED. COMPTON, C.J., and MOISE, J., concur. CARMODY and CHAVEZ, JJ., not participating.