Title: Burk v. State
Citation: 275 N.E.2d 1
Docket Number: 671S172
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: November 24, 1971

275 N.E.2d 1 (1971)
Debra BURK, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 671S172.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
November 24, 1971.
*2 Craig, Craig &amp; Brown, Brazil, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Mark Peden, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
HUNTER, Judge.
Appellant, Debra Burk, was found guilty, after trial to a jury, of the use of a narcotic drug, Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, commonly known as LSD. Upon conviction, a minimum penalty was imposed which consisted of a one (1) dollar fine and a sentence of one hundred-eighty (180) days in the Correctional Department of the Indiana Women's Prison. Appellant's Motion to Correct Errors was overruled, and this appeal was initiated.
Appellant was charged pursuant to IC 1971, XX-XX-X-X (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-3520 [1970 Supp.]). The affidavit reads, in part:
Appellant was found not guilty of Count II, but was convicted on Count I.
IC 1971, XX-XX-X-X (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-3520 [1970 Supp.]), reads, in applicable part, as follows:
Prior to trial, counsel for appellant filed a timely Motion to Quash the Affidavit. The Motion to Quash was based upon the following grounds:
1. That the charge stated does not constitute a public offense:
2. That the Affidavit does not state the offense with sufficient certainty;
3. That the charge is based upon a Statute that is unconstitutional.
The trial court overruled the motion, and appellant has assigned error to this ruling on appeal.
Appellant contends that lysergic acid diethylamide, hereinafter referred to as LSD, is not a narcotic drug as defined by IC 1971, XX-XX-X-X (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-3519 [1970 Supp.]), which reads, in part, as follows:
The conviction was based on the conclusion that the Indiana Board of Pharmacy has proclaimed that LSD is a "narcotic drug" pursuant to the powers vested in it by the above statute. It is claimed that such proclamation was made by Board of Pharmacy Regulation 22, § 1, which reads as follows:
Appellee contends that IC 1971, XX-XX-X-X (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-3519 [1970 Supp.]), incorporates by reference Indiana Board of Pharmacy Regulation 22, § 1, which, in turn, incorporates by reference the definition of drugs as defined by the Dangerous Drug Act, IC 1971, 16-6-8-2 (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 35-3332 [1970 Supp.]). In effect, it is claimed that the legislature delegated the power to define narcotic drugs to the Indiana Board of Pharmacy, and, in turn, the Indiana Board of Pharmacy decided that the definition of narcotic drugs should include the legislature's definition of dangerous drugs as defined by the Dangerous Drug Act. We do not agree.
IC 1971, XX-XX-X-X (Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-3519 [1970 Supp.]), hereinafter referred to as the Narcotic Drug Act, should not be construed to mean that the legislature delegated the power to define a narcotic drug to the Indiana Board of Pharmacy. The language in the Narcotic Drug Act clearly limits the authority of Indiana Board of Pharmacy to determining, after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing, whether a certain drug falls within the definition of a "narcotic drug" as that term is used in the Narcotic Drug Act. The Narcotic Drug Act clearly states that such drug must have an addiction-forming or an addiction-sustaining quality similar to any narcotic drug expressly defined in the Act itself. The Act further qualifies the authority of the Indiana Board of Pharmacy by permitting the Board to consider, when making such determinations, federal narcotics law or Presidential Proclamations as they might relate to narcotic drugs. There is no language in the Act which could be construed to mean that the Indiana Board of Pharmacy has been given the authority to redefine a narcotic drug.
Furthermore, this Court is of the opinion that Indiana Board of Pharmacy Regulation 22, § 1, is not an attempt by the Board to redefine a narcotic drug. The regulation in question merely states that the meaning of the terms "narcotics" and "dangerous drugs" have been defined by the legislature in the Narcotic Drug Act and the Dangerous Drug Act. Regulation 22 only defines the term "narcotics *4 and other dangerous drugs" for purposes of clarification of that term as it is used in the regulations.
The Narcotic Drug Act provides a penalty for the use of a narcotic drug as defined by this Act. LSD has never been defined by the Narcotic Drug Act as a narcotic drug. Therefore, an affidavit pursuant to the Narcotics Act charging the use of LSD is erroneous, and it follows that the trial court committed error in overruling appellant's Motion to Quash. In that the trial court's judgment must be reversed, we find it unnecessary to reach the other issues presented on this appeal.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with instructions to sustain appellant's Motion to Quash the Affidavit.
ARTERBURN, C.J., and DeBRULER, GIVAN and PRENTICE, JJ., concur.