Opinion ID: 2786680
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Meaning of “Derivative”

Text: [¶6] Reckards was convicted pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1120(1), which provides: “A person is guilty of unlawful trafficking in a synthetic hallucinogenic drug if the person intentionally or knowingly trafficks in what the person knows or 4 believes to be a synthetic hallucinogenic drug, which is in fact a synthetic hallucinogenic drug.” (Emphasis added.) Title 17-A M.R.S. § 1101 (16-A)(O) provides that a substance meeting the following criteria is a “synthetic hallucinogenic drug”: A derivative of cathinone, including any compound, material, mixture, preparation or other product, structurally derived from 2-aminopropan-1-one by substitution at the 1-position with either phenyl, naphthyl or thiophene ring systems, whether or not the compound is further modified in any of the following ways: (1) By substitution in the ring system to any extent with alkyl, alkylenedioxy, alkoxy, haloalkyl, hydroxyl or halide substituents, whether or not further substituted in the ring system by one or more other univalent substituents; (2) By substitution at the 3-position with an acyclic alkyl substituent; or (3) By substitution at the 2-amino nitrogen atom with alkyl, dialkyl, benzyl or methoxybenzyl groups or by inclusion of the 2-amino nitrogen atom in a cyclic structure. (Emphasis added.)2 [¶7] Reckards argues that the term “derivative” is based purely in chemistry and has two possible definitions, and because different chemists could reach different conclusions, the statute is unconstitutional. At the hearing on the motions 2 This statute has been repealed, reenacted, and relocated. Originally, the charging statute was found at 17-A M.R.S. § 1120(1), and the language above was part of the definition of a “synthetic hallucinogenic drug” found at 17-A M.R.S. § 1101(16-A)(O) (2012). Currently, the charging statute is found at 17-A M.R.S. § 1103(1-A)(A) (2014), and the language above is listed under the definition of “schedule W” drug at 17-A M.R.S. § 1102(1)(P)(15) (2014). 5 to dismiss, the State offered the testimony of Maria Pease, a chemist employed by the State of Maine, who explained that a substance can be derived either synthetically, meaning that it is possible to physically create the substance in a lab from an antecedent, or it can be derived theoretically, meaning that the substance can be derived on paper in the abstract.3 Pease also testified that she and several other chemists had discussed the meaning of the word “derivative,” and had ultimately agreed that the term encompassed both of the chemistry-related definitions that Pease described. The word “derivative” also has a common usage that can be looked up in a dictionary and is consistent with the interpretation agreed upon by the chemists referenced at the hearing.4 For these reasons, the term “derivative” is not unconstitutionally vague.