Opinion ID: 2101471
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Motion To Quash

Text: In the pretrial motion to quash the indictment, [1] defendant challenged the constitutionality of the statute upon which the indictment is based. He claimed that it violates: (1) Article XIV of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States because it seeks to control activity which the weight of scientific evidence shows does not pose a serious and immediate danger to the public health, safety or morals, and because it fails to distinguish between marijuana and the so-called hard narcotics; and (2) Article IX of the amendments to the Federal Constitution because there is no compelling state interest justifying an abridgement of his right to smoke marijuana; and (3) Article VIII of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States and article I, section VIII of the state constitution because it provides for an excessive, cruel and unusual punishment [2] for the state of drug addiction which is not proportionate to the offense. These challenges require no extended discussion. The first two suffer from a common failing. While defendant repeats those challenges in his brief, he does not support them there or in oral argument with any analysis, discussion or citation of authority. A contention, like an exception, if it is to be meaningful, requires briefing and argument. These challenges are, therefore, at least for the purpose of this review, deemed to have been waived. State v. Mandella, 79 R.I. 476, 478-79, 90 A.2d 423, 425. There is an alternative ground for rejecting the first challenge. While the motion asserts that cannabis is distinguishable from hard narcotics, and that the weight of scientific evidence indicates that it poses no danger permitting an exercise of the police power, the record contains not even a scintilla of evidentiary substantiation for these factual assertions. That void alone precludes consideration inasmuch as an old and deeply imbedded principle in our jurisprudence presumes constitutionality and imposes upon one attacking it the burden of demonstrating unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. Chartier Real Estate Co. v. Chafee, 101 R.I. 544, 549, 225 A.2d 766, 769; Opinion to the House of Representatives, 99 R.I. 377, 381, 208 A.2d 126, 128; State v. Edwards, 89 R.I. 378, 387, 153 A.2d 153, 159; In the Matter of Dorrance Street, 4 R.I. 230, 240. Moreover, to prescribe penalties for possession of cannabis, and to classify it with other hard narcotics, are legislative judgments and they are presumed to be supported by facts known to the legislature unless facts judicially known or proved preclude that possibility. South Carolina Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177, 191, 58 S.Ct. 510, 517, 82 L. Ed. 734, 743. The record in this case is devoid of any evidentiary basis which would justify a disregard of the legislative judgment. The defendant's final challenge to the indictment is also inadequate. He argues that cannabis has been legislatively classified as a narcotic, that being a narcotic it must be assumed to be addictive, that a user of an addictive is afflicted with a disease, and that to criminally punish for an affliction is constitutionally impermissible. Whatever the validity of this argument might be if defendant had been indicted for using cannabis, it has none and is completely inapposite here where there is no evidence that defendant is a user and where he is charged, not with using , but with possession of cannabis. Finally, it should be observed that other courts reaching the merits of a challenge to the validity of a marijuana statute, so called, have with apparent unanimity rejected substantially the same constitutional arguments as are urged here. People v. Stark, 157 Colo. 59, 400 P.2d 923; Spence v. Sacks, 173 Ohio St. 419, 183 N.E.2d 363; State v. Mendoza, 104 Ariz. 395, 454 P.2d 140; Reyna v. State (Tex.) 434 S.W.2d 362; State v. Robinson, 75 Wash.2d 230, 450 P.2d 180; Commonwealth v. Leis, 355 Mass. 189, 243 N.E.2d 898; Bailey v. United States, 386 F.2d 1.