2015 UT App 22

_________________________________________________________



### T H E 

### U TA H 

### C O U RT O F 

### A P P E A L S

S TAT E OF U TAH

, Plainti ff and Appellant,

v. R I C HAR

D A RG H I TTU

, Defendan t and Appellee.
Opin i on No. 20130677-CA Filed J anuary 29, 2015

Thi rd Di stric t Co urt, S alt Lake Depart ment The Honorable Wi lli am W. Barret t The Honorable Eli zabeth A. Hruby-Mill s The Honorable Robin W. Reese No. 121900103
Sean D. Reyes and Jeffrey S. Gr ay, At tor neys

for Appellant
Ri chard P. Mauro, At tor ney for Appellee

J UD G E J OHN A. P E ARC Eauthore d thi s Opini on, i n whi ch J UD G E S G RE G OR

Y K. O R M Eand S T E P H E N L. R OT H concu rr ed.

PEARCE, Judge:

¶1 The St ate ch a rg ed Ri chard Arg hi ttu wi th di strib uti on of a contro lled sub stance analog, money laundering, and partici patin g in a patter n of unlaw ful activity. The charges stemmed from hi s alleged di st r ibution of a form of synthetic mari juana known as AM-2201. After Arg hi ttu’s prelim inary hear ing, a di stric t court judge, acting as a magi strat e, conclu ded that AM-2201 w as not an analog o f t he contro lled sub stance JWH-018 as the St ate had al l e ge d

. Th e m a gi s tr ate found probable caus e to bind Arg hi ttu ov er
on one lesser, but uncharged, count of d r ug possess i on notState v. Arghitt u

involv ing AM-2201. The St ate declined t o amend t he information to charge the single lesser count, and the magi strat e di smi ssed the information at the St ate’ s re qu e s t. The St ate appeals from the or der 1 of di smi ssal . We rev erse and remand for furt her pro ceedings.

BACKGRO UND 2

¶2 Arg hi ttu, acting thro ugh two bus iness es that he owned or co-owned, packaged and di strib uted synt hetic mari juana,

co mmonly known as “spi ce.” As of mi d-2010, the psychoactiv e ingredient in Arg hi ttu’s pro d ucts was the synthetic cannab inoi d JWH-018. Arg hi ttu would purchas e the spi ce in bulk, package i t in small plasti c jar s o r z ipl ock foi l bags, and shi p i t to smoke shops, gas stations, and novelt y stor es across the country. At that time, JWH-018 was not li sted as a contro lled sub stance under U tah or federal law.

¶3 I n N o v ember 2010, the Uni ted St ates Drug Enforcement Agency (the DEA) i ssu ed a notic e of intent to temp o r arily catego rize JWH-018 and several other synthetic cannab inoi ds as Schedule I contro lled sub stances

. In Mar ch 2011, the federal li sting of JWH-018 a s a co ntro lled substance was fi nali zed. Also in 2011, the Utah Legis lature amended the Utah Code to expr essly i denti fy

1. Judge Barr ett conduc ted the prelim inary he aring and ruled

or ally that Arg hi ttu could be bound ov er solely on the single lesser count. Judge Hruby-Mi lls s i gned the findings of facts and conclu

si ons of law that i mplemented that ruli ng. Judge Reese enter ed the

or der dis mi ssing the infor mati on.

2. “At a prelim inary hearin g, ‘[t]he magi strat e should view the evidenc e in a li ght most favor able to the prosecuti on and resolv e all inference s in fav or of the prosecuti on.’” State v. Graha m , 2013 UT App 109, ¶ 2 n.1, 302 P.3d 824 (alterat i on in or i gin al) (quoti ng State

v. Hawat meh , 2001 UT 51, ¶ 3, 26 P.3d 223). Accordi ngly, we recite the backgr ound fac ts in a li ght most fav or able to the Stat e. See id.

20130677-CA 2 2015 UT App 22State v. Arghitt u

several synthetic cannab inoi ds, inclu ding JWH-018, a s contro lled

s ub stances

. See Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-4.2 (Lexi sNexi s Sup p

. 2 0 1 1 ) (effec tive Feb. 25, 2011). Utah Code secti on 58-37-4.2 stated that the sub stances enumerated there in, as well as “their analogs, homolo g s, and synthetic equi valents,” were “li sted contro lled sub stances .” Id. Utah Code secti on 58-37-2 defined a cont ro lled sub stance analog as a sub stanc e t ha t had a chemi cal structure “sub stanti ally s i mi lar” to that of a li sted contro lled sub stance and that ei ther had, or was re p r e sent ed or intended to have, a “sti mulan t, depressant, or halluc ino g eni c effect

. . . sub stanti ally si mi lar” to that of a li sted contro ll e d s ub stance. Id. § 58-37-2( 1)(g)(i ).

¶4 Becaus e JWH- 0 18 had been clas si fi ed as a contro lled sub stance, Arg hi ttu began look ing for other chemi cal compounds t hat would serve as an effecti ve sub sti tute. He settled o n a compound known as AM-2201. AM-2201 possess ed a “si mi lar effec t ” to JWH-018 but was not expr essly li sted as a contro lled sub stance under Utah or federal la w. Between Februar y 25 and Nove mber 7, 2011, Arg hi ttu packaged and di strib uted spi ce products contai ning AM-2201 as their psychoact i ve ingredient. Arg hi ttu ret ained an independent laborat or y to test hi s products to

ensure tha t t he y contai ned only AM-2201 and not JWH-018 or other expr essly banned sub stances

. Although Arg hi ttu labeled the products “not for human consu mpti on,” he frequently di scu ssed wi th other s the potenc y or “level of hi gh” that hi s products were capabl e of pro ducing when ingested.

¶5 On Nove mber 7, 2011, the St ate executed a search warr ant

on Arg hi ttu’s warehouse in Mu r r a y , Utah. During the search, agents di scovered and sei zed spi ce products, packagin g materials, and financi al recor ds documenting recent spi ce shi pments valued at more than $80,000. Testing rev ealed that most of the sei zed spi ce
co nt a ined AM-2201. One tested product contai ned the synthetic cannab inoi d JWH-122, and another co nt ained the compound MD PV, both of whi ch were expr essly li sted as contro lled sub stances under the 2011 ver si on of Utah Code secti on 58-37-4.2.

20130677-CA 3 2015 UT App 22State v. Arghitt u

¶6 The St ate charged Arg hi ttu wi th di strib ut ing a contro lled sub stance analog, money laundering, and engaging in a patter n of unlaw ful acti vity. The charges were all fi rst degr ee felo ni es, and each charge rested on the St ate’s assert io n that AM-2201 was an analog o f the li sted contro lled substanc e JWH-018.

¶7 At the prelim inary hear ing, the St ate presented exper t te sti mony from Scot t McDani el, a forensi c sci entis t employed by the Utah Bureau of For ensi c Ser vic es Laborat or y Sy stem, also known as the St ate Crime Lab. McDani el testifi ed that the cri me lab

co ns iders AM-2201 to be an analog of JWH-018 becau se the two sub stances are ch emi cally “virtually i denti cal.” He explai ned that AM-2201 and JWH-018 “have the exact same structure and composi tion, other than one atom.” Using a di agr am compari ng the two molecules, he explain ed that the only chemi cal di fference b e tw e e n AM

- 2 2 0 1 and JWH-018 i s that AM-2201 contai ns a fl u or in e atom atthe end of a pentyl chai n instead of a hydro gen ato m.
¶8 The St ate also presented testim ony from Ser geant St ant o n VanWagoner, a vet eran narcotics offi cer

. VanWagoner testifi ed that, in hi s exper i ence, AM-2201 users exhib i t e d “ t he same symptomolog y that they would under the influ ence of JWH-018.” V a nW a go n e r te s ti fi e d th a t AM -2201 had “si mi lar lasting effects” on users, “j us t li ke JWH-018 would have.” VanWagoner based hi s testim on y o n hi s personal observat i ons of and di scu ssi ons wi th people who had used AM-2201. Another wi tness testifi ed about hi s
own exper i ence wi th the psychoacti ve effects of AM-2 2 0 1

. That wi tnes s, a n associ ate of Arg hi ttu’s, testifi ed that AM-2201 was “act ua lly more potent ” than JWH-018, that “i t’s stro nger, i t take s less, [and] lasts long e r , ” and that i t “pret ty much shu t your func tion.”

¶9 By t he tim e of Arg hi ttu’s prelim inary hearin g, Utah Code secti on 58-37-4.2 had been amended to expr essly li st AM-2201 as a contro lled substance. See Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-4.2 (Lexis Nexis 2012). The magi strat e e xp re s s e d c on c e rn th a t the a m e ndment mi ght have some bearin g on whe t he r AM-2201 could be consi dered an

20130677-CA 4 2015 UT App 22State v. Arghitt u

analog under the 2011 ver si on of the statute and invited the parties to br i ef the i ssu e.
¶10 After receiving the parties’ briefs, the magi strat e en ter ed a wri tte n o rder conclu ding that t he Stat e had fai led to demonstr ate probable caus e that, duri ng the F e br uary to Nove mber 2011 tim e period charged in the info r ma t ion, AM-2201 was a banned contro lled substance analog. The magistrate li sted fi ve rea so ns in supp or t of t hi s finding:

a. That JWH-018 was legal in the state of Utah unti l the legis lature pass ed a bi ll outlawing that sub stance

on Februar y 26, 2011

. A M-2201 was not made unlaw ful as an analo g by the Utah Legis lature unti l 2012.

b. Thus there was insu fficie nt notic e to [Arghittu] that AM-2201 was an unlaw ful sub stance between Februar y 26, 2011 a nd N ov ember 7, 2011, the tim e period ch arg ed in the i nformation.

c. The Court also finds relev ant the testim ony by [Arghittu] hi s intent in ensuring that he was complying wi th Utah law by havin g AM-2201 tested in a DEA s ancti oned laborat or y.

d. The Court rej ects the su p p o si tion that i t i s the cri me lab’s responsibi li ty to i denti fy A M -2201 as an unlaw ful sub stance. The Court finds that the responsibi li ty r ests wi th the Leg i slature.

e. Whi le the Court finds Mr

. VanWa g oner to be a knowledgea ble and exper i enced poli ce offi cer, the Court does not find that his t esti mony ris es to the level of an e xper t r egar ding whether AM -2201 i s an analog o f JWH- 018.

20130677-CA 5 2015 UT App 22State v. Arghitt u

The magi strat e found probable caus e to bind Arg hi ttu ov er on one count of constructi ve possess i on of the li sted contro lled sub stance MDPV, a thi rd degr ee felony, and o r d e red the St ate to amend i ts information acc or dingly.

¶11 The St ate declined to amend the information and instead requested that the magi strat e di smi ss it e nti rely

. The magi strat e di d. The State appeals fro m that di smi ssalor der.

ISS UES AND STANDARDS O F REVIEW

¶12 Arg hi ttu fi led a motion for sum mary di smi ssal of the St ate’s appeal, arg uing that we lack jurisdi cti on to enter tain t he a ppeal becau se the St ate i tself sought di smi ssalof the in formation rather than amending to proceed o n the constructi ve possess i on charge. Arg hi ttu argues that the St ate has no right to appeal a di smi ssal i t requested and should have pursued an interlo cutory appeal of the

m a gi s trate’s bindover or der. “Whether appellate jurisdi cti on exis ts i s a ques tion of law ” whi ch we deci de in the fi rst ins tance. State v. Comer, 2002 UT App 219, ¶ 10 , 5 1 P. 3 d 55 (ci tation and internal quotat i on marks omitted).

¶13 The St a te a rgues that the magi strat e err ed in refusing to bind

ov er Arg hi tt u a s charged becau se the evidenc e before the magi strat e demonstrate d probable caus e th a t AM

- 2 2 0 1 i s a n a n alog of JWH-018. The magi strat e’s bindo ver deci si on “i s a mi xed deter minati on that i s entitled to some li mi ted deference.” S ta te v. Maughan , 2013 UT 37, ¶ 12, 305 P.3d 1058. However , the St ate i s entitled to have a defendant bound ov er for tr i al i f i t presents “evidenc e suffi ci en t to supp or t a reasonable beli ef that the defendant commi tte d the charged cri me.” Id. ¶ 14 (ci tations and internal quotat io n marks omi tte d). In maki ng the bindover deter minati on, the magi strat e “mus t view all evidenc e in the li ght most favor able to the prosecuti on and must d r a w all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecuti on.” Id. (ci tatio n a nd internal quotat i on marks omitted).

20130677-CA 6 2015 UT App 22State v. Arghitt u

¶14 The St ate also arg ues that the magi str a te exceeded the proper scope of the pr e l iminary hearin g when i t conclu ded, apparently on c onsti tutional gr ounds, that Arg hi ttu lacked notic e that AM-2201 was i llegal as a contro lled sub stance analog and that the responsi

bi li ty to i denti fy i t as such rests wi th the legis lature rat her than the cri me lab. These i ssu es present questi ons of law, whi ch we rev i ew for corr ectness. See S ta te v. Briggs , 2008 UT 83, ¶ 11, 199 P.3d 935 (“A challen ge to the consti tutionali ty of a statute p re s e n ts a questi on of law, whi ch we rev i ew for corr ectness.”) ; Sta te
v. Virgin , 2 0 0 6 U T 29, ¶ 16, 137 P.3d 787 (ch aracter i zing “the appr o p riate legal standard for a prelim inary hearin g” as a “questi on[] of law, whi ch w e rev i ew for corr ectness”)

.

ANALYS IS
I. Appellate Juris di cti on
¶15 After the St ate fi led i ts notic e of appeal, Arg hit t u filed a motion for sum mary di sposi tion in thi s court, arg uing that we lack appellate jurisdi cti on to consi der the St ate’s appeal. In the motion, Arg hi ttu arg ues th a t the magi strat e bound hi m ov er for tr i al—albei t on a single, less e r , uncharged offense—and that the St ate’s motion to di smi ss the information repr esented a di screti onary r equest pursuant to rule 25 of the Utah Rules of C r iminal Procedure. See Utah R. Crim. P. 25(a) (“In its dis cret io n, fo r sub stanti al caus e and in furtherance of justic e, the court ma y , ei ther on i ts own ini tiati ve or upon appli cati on of ei ther party , or der an information or indi ctment di smi ssed.”)

. Under t ho se ci rcums tances, Arg hi ttu contends, the St ate has no appeal of right fr o m t he di smi ssal or der but rat her was required to seek an interlo cutory appeal o f t he magi strat e’s bind o v e r or der. See Utah R. App. P. 5.

¶16 We di sagree wi th Arg hi t t u’ s characterizati on of the di smissa l motion and or der. Although the St ate’s motion di d not ci te any particu lar rule as the basi s for di smi ssing the information,

20130677-CA 7 2015 UT App 22State v. Arghitt u

i t was fi led in response to the magi strat e’s bindover ru l ing “[i ]n li eu of a me nding the Information.” The di smi ssal or der acknowledged the absenc e of probable cau se fo r the charged cri mes and the St ate’s refusa l t o amend the information. It then 3 stated, “[T] he Court hereby di smi sses the Information

. . . pursu ant to rule 7(i)(3) , U t ah Rules of Criminal Procedure.” (Emph asi s added.)

¶17 Rule 7(i )(3) prov i de s, “If the magi strat e does not find probable caus e to beli eve that the cri me ch a r g e d has been commi tte d or that the defendant commi tte d i t, the magi strat e shall di smi ss the information and di sch arg e the defendant.” By statute, the St ate “may, as a matter of right, a p p e a l fr o m

. . . a final judgment o f d ismi ssal, inclu ding a di smi ssal of a felony information following a refusal to bind the defendant ov er for tr i al.” Utah Co d e A nn. § 77-18a-1( a) (Lexi sNexi s 2012). The mag istrate ’s di smi ssal of the information pursuant to rule 7(i )(3) consti tutes “a di smi ssal of a felony information following a refusal to bind the defendant ov er for tr i al.” See id. Th us , secti on 77-18a-1( a) prov i des the St ate the abi li ty to appeal, and we have jurisdi cti on to consi der the St ate’s di rect appeal from the di smi ssal

or der. 4

3. Arg hi ttu arg ues t hat the magi strat e enter ed an or der binding hi m ov er on the lesser, uncharged offense. The magi strat e’s minute entry , however, prov i ded that the St ate “i s to fi le an a me nd e d inf o r mati on,” “whi ch the Court wi ll bindover for arr ai gnment.” The bindover was there fore condi tioned upon the St ate amending the in formation.

4. Thi s c on c l u s i on i s c on s i stent wi th prior cases involv ing vo luntary di smi ssal s by the St ate. See State v. Harrison , 2011 UT 74, ¶ 13, 269 P.3d 133 (o bs erv ing that the St ate has “an unques tioned right to appeal from the dis mi ssalof the gr eater offense” where di smi ssal

occurs after the St ate refuses to amend the information to a reduced charg e ); S ta te v. Gomez, 722 P.2d 747, 748–49 (Utah 1986) (“The (continued...)

20130677-CA 8 2015 UT App 22State v. Arghitt u

II. Pro bable Caus e
¶18 The St a te a rgu e s that the magi strat e err ed in refusing to bind Arg hi ttu ov er on the three counts charged in the information. Each of the three charged counts required the St ate t o p r o ve that A M -2201 was a contro lled sub stance analog duri ng the charg e d t i me frame. The magi strat e’s bindover or der conclu ded that t he

5 St ate had not furni shed evidenc e to est abli sh probable caus e that AM-2201 consti tuted a contro lled sub stance analog under the 2011

ver si on of Ut ah Code secti on 58-37-4.2.

¶19 “To supp or t the bindover of a defendan t for tr i al, the prosecuti on mus t put forward enough evidenc e at the prelim inary hearin g to establi sh probable caus e.” State v. Graha m , 2013 UT App 109, ¶ 8, 302 P.3d 8 2 4; see also Utah R. Crim. P. 7(i )(2) (requi ring bindover when the magi strat e “finds probable caus e to beli eve that the cri me charged has been commi tte d and that the defendant has

co mmitted i t”). “[A] showing of ‘pro bable caus e’ entail s only the presentation of ‘evidenc e suffi ci ent to supp or t a reasonable beli ef that the defendant commi tte d the charged cri me.’” State v. Ramirez , 2012 U T 59, ¶ 9, 289 P.3d 444 (quoti ng State v. Virgin , 2006 UT 29, ¶ 17, 137 P.3d 787). In the bindover context, the “reasonable beli ef” standard “parallels the standard for an arr est wa r rant, meaning that the level of evid e nc e that the prosecuti on mus t show i s less than that required to prov e gui lt beyon d a r easonable doubt.” Graha m , 2013 UT App 109, ¶ 8

. “All that i s r equi red i s r easonably believ able evidenc e—as opposed to specu lation—s uffi ci ent to

4. (...continued) effect of the tr i al co ur t’s ruli ng was to block prosecuti on and, in effect, to di smi ss the or i gin al charges. Under these ci rcums tances, the St ate proper ly suggested that the tr i al co urt formally di smi ss the information and then appealed ‘[f]rom a final judgment of di smi ssal .’” (alterat i on i n original))

. 5. The other elements o f t he charged cri mes ar e not in di spute for purposes of thi s appeal.

20130677-CA 9 2015 UT App 22State v. Arghitt u

sus taineach element of the cri me(s ) in questi on.” Id. (ci tation and internal quot ation marks omi tte d).

¶20 Th e appli cable ver si on of Utah Code secti on 58-37-4

. 2 speci fic a lly enumerated var i ous chemi cal compounds, inclu ding JW H-018, and stated that “[those] sub stances, their analogs, homolog s, and synthetic equi valents are l ist ed contro lled sub stances .” Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-4.2 (Lexi sNexi s Supp. 2011). Utah Code secti on 58-37-2 defined a “[c] ontr olled sub stance analog” as “a sub stance the chemi cal str uctur e of whi ch i s sub stanti ally si mi lar to t he chemi cal structure of a contro lled sub stance,” and whi ch ei ther “has” or , “wi th respect to a particu lar indi vidu al, i s repr esented or int e nded to have,” “a sti mulan t, depressant, or halluc inogenic effect on the central nerv ous system sub stanti ally si mi lar to the s timu l a n t, d e p re ssan t, or halluc inogenic effect on the central nervous system of contro lled substanc es.” Id. § 58-37-2( 1)(g)(i ). Thus, to have Arg hi ttu bound ov er as charged, the St ate was required to prov i de reasonably beli evable evidenc e that AM-2 2 0 1 ’ s chemi cal structure was “sub stanti ally si mi lar” to JWH-018’s chemi cal structure and t ha t A M-2201 ei ther had a sub stanti ally si mi lar effect as JWH-018 o r was “repr esented or intended” to hav e such an effect.

¶21 To demonstrate that AM-2201 and JWH-018 have

s ub s tanti ally si mi lar chemi cal structures, the St a te p re s e nte d e xp e rt testim ony from McDani el, a forensi c sci entis t wi th the St ate Crime Lab. McDani el testifi ed that the chemi cal structure of AM-2201 and the chemi cal structure of JWH-018 are “virtually i denti cal,” explain ing that AM-2201 and JWH-018 “have the exact same st r ucture and composi tion, other than one atom.” He also presented a comparative di agr am of t he two molecules demonstrating that the two compounds share an i denti cal shape and structure and di ffer only in that AM-2201 replaces a hydro gen atom atthe end of a pentyl chai n wi th a fluorin e ato m.
¶22 Thi s evidenc e supp or ts a reasonable beli ef that AM-2201 sati sfi es section 58-37-4’s r equi rement tha t a contro lled substance

20130677-CA 10 2015 UT App 22State v. Arghitt u

analog share a “sub stanti ally si mi lar” chemi cal stru ct ure wi th a li sted contro lled substanc e. See Utah Co de Ann. § 58-37-2( 1)(g)(i ). To the ext ent that the St ate’s evidenc e left any questi on that AM-2201 shares a su bstanti ally si mi lar chemi cal structure wi th JWH-018, the “magi strat e mus t view all evidenc e in the li ght most favor able to the prosecuti on and mus t draw all reasonable inferences in favor o f t he prosecuti on.” State v. Clark , 2001 UT 9, ¶ 10, 20 P.3d 300 (ci tation and internal quotat i on marks omi tte d ). Vi ewed in a li ght most favor able to the St ate, McDani el’s testim ony prov i ded “reasonably beli evable evidenc e” that t he chemi cal structure of AM-2201 i s sub stanti ally si mi lar to that of J W H

- 0 1 8

. Se e Graha m , 2013 UT App 109, ¶ 8 (ci tation and internal quotat i on marks omitted).

¶23 The S tate also demonstrate d probable caus e that A M -2 2 01 has a sub stanti ally si mi lar effect o n t he central nerv ous system as JWH-018. VanWagoner, a vet eran narcotics offi cer, testifi ed that AM-2 2 0 1 p ro duced “the same symptomolog y that [us ers] would [exhibi t] under the influ en ce of JWH-018” and that AM-2201 had “si mi lar lasting effects” on users, “just li ke JWH-018 would have.” VanWagoner based hi s testim ony on hi s personal interactions wi th people who had us ed AM-2201.

¶24 An associ ate of Arg hi ttu’s also described hi s own expe r i ences wi th both JWH-018 and AM-2201, testif yin g that AM-2201 has si mi lar effects but i s “stro nger, i t take s less, lasts longer .” He described AM-2201’s effect on hi m: “[I]t pret ty much

6 shu t your func tion.

. . . [Y]ou couldn’t just li ft up your ha nd and

move thi s. You just kin d of stare at i t and say I’d li ke to move that but I really ca n’ t right now.” Thi s testim ony, view ed in the li ght

6. Arg hi ttu suggests that thi s testim ony does not supp or t the propo si tion that the effects of AM-2201 and JWH-018 are sub stantiall y si mi lar, becau se the same wi tness testifi ed that their effects

are “di fferent.” However , rev i ewing the testim ony as a whole, i t i s clear that the stated di fference between th e e ff e cts of the two sub stances was one of potency, not o f psych oactive effec t.

20130677-CA 11 2015 UT App 22State v. Arghitt u

most favor able to the St ate, establi shes probable caus e t hat AM-2201 produces a sub stanti ally si mi lar “s tim ulant, depressant,

or halluc inogenic effect on the central nerv ous system” as the li sted contro lled substanc e JWH-018. 7

¶25 Despi te the State’ s evidenc e demonstrating probable caus e of the sub stanti al si mi larity in chem i cal structure and effect of AM-2201 and the contro l l e d substance JWH-018, the magi strat e conclu ded that AM-2201 was not a contro lled sub stance analog in 2011 and refused to bind Arg hi ttu ov er as charged. The magi strat e i denti fi ed fi ve reasons in support of the concl usion that AM-2201

was not a contro l l e d substance analog duri ng the charged tim e frame.

¶26 The magi strat e fi rst reasoned that “JWH-018 was lega l in the state of Utah unti l the legis lature pass ed a bi ll outla win g t hat sub stance on Februar y 26, 2011” and that “AM-2201 was not made unlaw ful as an analog by the Utah Legis lature unti l 20 1 2.” Although the magi strat e i s corr ect that AM-2201 was not expr essly enumerated as a contro lled substance unti l 2012, see Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-4.2 (Lexi sNexi s 2012), the S t a te’s evidenc e demonstrate d probabl e c a u s e th a t AM-2201 met the 2011 defini tion of a banned “contro lled sub stance analog” as di scu ssed above, see id. § 58-37-2( 1)(g)(i ) (Supp. 2011)

. ¶27 Th e m a gi s tr a te next reasoned that becau se AM-2201 was n ot expr essly banned unti l 2012, “t here was insu ffi ci ent notic e to [Arghittu] that AM-2201 was an unlawful sub stance between Februar y 26, 2011 and Nove mber 7, 2011, the tim e period charged in the information.” Thi s reasoning a g a in focus es on the speci fi c

7. The St ate also presented evidenc e demonstrating probable caus e that Arg hi ttu “repr esented or intended” AM-2201 to h a ve the same effect as one or more contro lle d sub stances

. See Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-2( 1)(g)(i )(B) (Lexi sNexi s Supp. 2011). Thi s evid e nce inclu ded Arg hi ttu’s di scu ssi ons of the “pot e nc y ” of hi s AM-2201 products when ingested.

20130677-CA 12 2015 UT App 22State v. Arghitt u

contro lled sub stances enumerated in secti on 58- 37-4.2 rat her than

on the defini tion of a contro lled sub stance analog found in secti on 58-37-2. Arg hi ttu may have beli eved that AM-2201 was not i llegal becau se i t was not speci fi cally li sted in secti on 58-37-4.2. However , in li ght of AM-2201’s potent i al to quali fy as a contro lled sub stance analog under secti on 58-37-2, such a beli ef would have consti tuted

a mi stake of law, whi ch in most ci rcums tances i s no bar to cri minal li abi li ty. See St at e v

. Steele, 2010 UT App 185, ¶ 30, 236 P.3d 161 (“‘[A] goo d fai th or mi staken beli ef that one’s conduc t i s legal does not relieve a person of cri minal li abi li ty for engaging in proscrib ed conduc t.’” (quoting 21 Am. Jur. 2d Crimi nal Law § 137 (2008)) ).

¶28 The magi strat e’s finding reg ardin g notic e could also be interpr eted as a ruli ng that Utah’s st a t ut e s gov ernin g
u n e n u m e r a t e d c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e a n a l o g s w e r e
unc onsti tutionally vag ue. See, e.g. , State v. Johnson , 2009 UT App 38 2 , ¶ 4 0 , 224 P.3d 720 (“A law i s unc onsti tutional and vo i d for vag uene ss if i ts prohibi tions are not clearly defined

. . . .”). However , ar t icl e 1, secti on 12 of the Utah Constituti on prov i des that “the func tio n o f a [preli minary hearin g] i s li mi ted to deter mining whether probable caus e exis ts unles s oth e r wise prov i ded by statute.” Ut ah Const. art . 1, § 12. 8

¶29 Arg hi ttu does not di rectly respond to the St ate’s a r t icl e 1, secti on 12 arg ument. Instead, he relies heavily on State v

. Ga l lion , 572 P.2d 683 (Utah 1977), wherei n the Utah Supreme Court upheld

a d i s tr i c t court or der quash ing an information becau se the dru g l a w
on whi ch i t was based unc onsti tutionally d e l e gate d legis lative authority to the Utah Att or ney General. See id. at 685–90. However , Gallion di d not address a magi strat e’s refusal t o bind a defendant

ov er for tr i al after a prelim inary hearin g; rat her, i t upheld a di stric t court or der gr anti ng the defendant’s motion to q ua sh. Id. at 685. Thus, Gallion prov i des no sup p o r t for the propo si tion that

8. The St ate asserts that no Utah statute authorizes a magi strat e to consi der consti tutional issues at a prelim inary hearin g. Arg hi ttu does not r efute that conte nti on.

20130677-CA 13 2015 UT App 22State v. Arghitt u

magi strat es may consi d e r c on s ti tutional arg uments at the bindover stage. 9

¶30 By i ts plain language, ar t i cle 1, secti on 12 of the Utah Cons t itution li mi ts prelim inary hearin gs to deter minati ons of probable caus e. See als o Utah R. Crim. P. 7(i ) (gov ernin g prelim inary hear ings); cf. State v. Holm , 2006 UT 31, ¶¶ 92–93, 137 P.3d 7 2 6 (explaining that cri minal jurisdi cti on should be deter mined by the tr i al court “after the bindo v e r or der i s i ssu ed and the information i s tr ansferr ed to the tr i al court”). Arg hi ttu has not prov i ded thi s court wi th any case or other authority suggesti ng
a ma g ist r a t e ma y co ns ide r a r g u m e n t s c h a l l e ng ing t he consti tutionali ty of a crimin a l st atute at a prelim inary hearin g. In the absenc e of such authority, we conclu de th a t the appropr i ate place to rais e such a challen ge i s in the di stric t court, after bindover has occurred. See Gallion , 572 P.2d at 685 (uph oldi ng a di stric t court

or der gr anti ng the defendant’s motion to quash information based

on a consti tutional challen ge to a cri minal statute). Accordi ngly, to the ext ent that t he ma g istrate ’s bindover or der was intended to oper ate as a ruli ng that the appli cable contr olled sub stances statutes are v o i d for vag ueness, we conclu de that the ruli ng exceeded the s cope of Arg hi ttu’s preliminary hear ing and was an inappropr i ate basi s for denyin g bi ndover

. ¶31 The magi strat e also found that Arg hi ttu demonstrate d hi s intent to comply wi th Utah law “by havin g AM-22 0 1 tested in a DEA sancti oned laborat or y.” Thi s may be a reasonable inference, but i t i s an inference in Arg hi ttu’s favor

. At the prelim inary hearin g stage, the magi strat e mus t “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecuti on.” State v. Clark , 2 0 0 1 U T 9 , ¶ 10, 20 P.3d 300

9. Even i f Gallion had addressed a magi strat e’s bindover or der, the

case was deci ded seventeen year s before Utah vo ter s approv ed the consti tutional amendmen t li mit ing the func tion of a prelim inary hearin g to a deter minati on of probable caus e. See Utah Code Ann., Utah Const. art

. 1, § 12 amendmen t notes (Lexi sNexi s Supp. 2014) (amendm ent effecti ve Jan. 1, 1995).

20130677-CA 14 2015 UT App 22State v. Arghitt u

(c i tation and internal quotat i on marks omi tte d). A compet ing reasonable inference i s that Arg hi ttu’s product testing reflected hi s desi re to prov i de an unadu lter ate d and potent intox i cant to hi s
cus tomer base. Thus view ed in the li ght most favor able to the St ate, Arg hi ttu’s acti ons in te st ing fo r AM-2201 supp or t a finding of probable caus e and should not hav e precluded bindover

. ¶32 The magi strat e also “rej ect[ed] the supp osi tion that i t i s the cri me lab’s responsi

bi li ty to i denti fy AM-2201 as an unlaw ful sub stance” and stated that the responsi bi li ty to i denti fy contro lled

su bstanc es “rests wi th the Legis lature.” We agr ee wi th t he magi strat e th a t the Utah Legis lature may not delegate to the executive branch unfettered authorit y t o declare chemi cal compounds to be contro lled sub stances

. See Ga llion , 572 P.2d at 687–90; cf. State v. Green , 793 P.2d 912, 913–17 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (holding that st ate statute could not delegate authority to deter mine co ntro lled sub stances to the Uni ted St ates Att or ney General). However, as dis cus sed abov e, art i cle I , secti on 12 of the Utah Constituti on precl ud es evaluation of a statuto ry sch eme’s constituti onali ty at the prelim inary hearin g stage. The magistrate there fore er red in d enyin g bi ndover on delegat i on gr ounds.

¶33 Fin ally, despi te an acknowledgment that VanWagoner was “a knowledgeable and exper i enced poli ce offi cer,” the magi strat e di d not consi der VanWagoner to be a quali fi ed exper t on “whether AM-2201 i s an analog of JWH-018.” However , even assu ming that the magi strat e proper ly di scoun ted VanWagoner’ s testim ony, the remain der of the St ate’s evidenc e suffi ci ently establi shed probable

caus e that A M-2201 was a c ontr olled subs tance analog.

¶34 The St ate presented testim ony from a cri me lab forensi c sci entis t, McDani el, that AM-2201 and JWH-018 shared a sub stanti a l l y simi lar structure. As to the psychoacti ve effects of AM-2201, Arg hi ttu’s associ ate described his own use of AM-2201 and declared i t “stro nger” than JWH-018. Alter nati vely , testim ony
a bo ut Arg hi ttu’s statements and bus iness practic es supp or ted a t least a reasonable inference that Arg hi ttu repr esented or intended that AM-2201 had effects sub stanti ally si mi lar to th o se of one or

20130677-CA 15 2015 UT App 22State v. Arghitt u

more contro lled sub st a nc e s. Thus, even in the absenc e of VanWagoner’ s testim ony, the St ate presented “evidenc e suffi ci ent to supp or t a reasonable beli ef” that AM-2201 was a contro lled sub stance analog and that A r g hittu commi tte d the charged offenses

. See State v. Maughan , 2013 UT 37, ¶ 14 , 3 0 5 P. 3d 1058 (ci tation and internal quot ation marks omi tte d).

¶35 We conclu de that the St ate demonstrate d probable ca us e that AM-2201 was a contro lled sub stance analog pursuant to Utah Code secti on 58-37-2( 1)(g)(i ) when Arg hit tu possess ed and di strib uted i t in

2011. We rev erse the magi strat e’s or ders denyi ng bindover and di smi ssing the infor mati on. We re mand thi s matter for furt her pro ceedings.

CONCLUS ION

¶36 We conclu de that we have appellate j ur i sdi cti on ov er the St ate’s appeal, that the St ate demonstrate d probable caus e to believe that Arg hi ttu commi tte d the cri mes charged in t he informat io n, and that any consti tutional rulings contai ned in the magi strat e’s bindover or der exce e d ed the scope of a prelim inary hearin g under art i cle 1, secti on 12 of the Utah Constituti on. F or 1 0 those reasons, we rev erse the magi strat e’s bindover and di smi ssal

or ders and remand thi s matter for further proceedings again st Arg hi ttu as charged inthe in formation.

10. Our conclusi on that consti tutional arg uments fall outsi de the scope of a prelim inary he a ring does not foreclose Arg hi ttu from pursuing those same arg uments before the di stric t court on remand. We expr ess no opin i on on the merits of a ny of the consti tutional arg uments that may be suggested in the magi strat e’s ruli ng or thi s opini on.

20130677-CA 16 2015 UT App 22