Opinion ID: 4528746
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Dismiss as De Minimis

Text: Melendez filed a motion to dismiss the charge on the basis that possession of .005 grams of cocaine constituted a de minimis violation and the charge should be dismissed pursuant to HRS § 702-236.2 The State did not file a written opposition, but 1 HRS § 712-1243 (2014) provides as follows: “(1) A person commits the offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree if the person knowingly possesses any dangerous drug in any amount. (2) Promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree is a class C felony.” 2 HRS § 702-236 (2014) provides as follows: (1) The court may dismiss a prosecution if, having regard to the nature of the conduct alleged and the nature of the attendant circumstances, it finds that the defendant’s conduct: (continued. . .) 3 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER it orally opposed Melendez’s motion at the hearing on the motion.3 Both parties stipulated into evidence previous expert testimony by Dr. George Read. The testimony had been given at a hearing on a motion to dismiss a possessory drug violation as de minimis held approximately 17 years earlier.4 The parties also stipulated to facts detailed in defense counsel’s declaration submitted with Melendez’s motion to dismiss; no other evidence was submitted in relation to Melendez’s motion. In the (. . .continued) (a) Was within a customary license or tolerance, which was not expressly refused by the person whose interest was infringed and which is not inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the offense; (b) Did not actually cause or threaten the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or (c) Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the legislature in forbidding the offense. (2) The court shall not dismiss a prosecution under subsection (1)(c) of this section without filing a written statement of its reasons. 3 The Honorable Judge Todd W. Eddins presided over the proceedings in this case. 4 Dr. Read, an expert in pharmacology, testified in relevant part that doses of methamphetamine as low as .005 grams had been used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Additionally, Dr. Read had testified in State v. Viernes that .001 grams of methamphetamine was incapable of producing any pharmacological or physiological effect. 92 Hawai‘i 130, 131–32, 988 P.2d 195, 196–97 (1999). Melendez cited the testimony given in Viernes in his motion to dismiss, and the State discussed that testimony at the hearing as if it were part of the stipulation, although it was not. 4 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER declaration, defense counsel averred in relevant part that (1) Melendez was taken into custody at ACSS and subjected to a custodial search; (2) that a baggie containing a small amount of white powdery substance was discovered in Melendez’s right pocket; (3) that no paraphernalia was located during the search; (4) the bag was later analyzed as containing a substance weighing .005 grams and containing cocaine; and (5) .005 grams of a substance containing cocaine is neither usable nor saleable. Melendez also maintained that there was no evidence indicating he was under the influence of any drugs at the time of the custodial search. The State opposed the motion, arguing that Melendez’s violation was not de minimis because the amount of drugs Melendez possessed was five times greater than .001 grams, which the expert testimony indicated was an amount that could not have any pharmacological effect. After hearing argument from counsel, the court orally granted Melendez’s motion with prejudice. The court issued an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss for De Minimis Violation (De Minimis Order) on May 29, 2018. In the De Minimis Order, the court made several findings of fact and conclusions of law related to its granting of Melendez’s motion. The court 5 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER discussed the statutory scheme of HRS §§ 712-1241,5 712-1242,6 and 712-1243, noting that the Hawaiʻi Penal Code quantifies illegal possession by measurement in ounces or grams, not in 5 HRS § 712-1241(1)(a) and (2) (2014 & Supp. 2016) provides as follows: (1) A person commits the offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the first degree if the person knowingly: (a) Possesses one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight of: (i) One ounce or more, containing methamphetamine, heroin, morphine, or cocaine or any of their respective salts, isomers, and salts of isomers; or (ii) One and one-half ounce or more, containing one or more of any of the other dangerous drugs; . . . . (2) Promoting a dangerous drug in the first degree is a class A felony. 6 HRS § 712-1242 (2014 & Supp. 2016) provides as follows: (1) A person commits the offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree if the person knowingly: (a) Possesses twenty-five or more capsules, tablets, ampules, dosage units, or syrettes, containing one or more dangerous drugs; (b) Possesses one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight of: (i) One-eighth ounce or more, containing methamphetamine, heroin, morphine, or cocaine or any of their respective salts, isomers, and salts of isomers; or (ii) One-fourth ounce or more, containing any dangerous drug; or (c) Distributes any dangerous drug in any amount. (2) Promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree is a class B felony. 6 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER tenths, hundredths, or thousandths of grams. Considering the scheme as a whole, the court stated, “it is clear that under the circumstances . . . Melendez’s possession of .005 grams of a substance containing cocaine eclipses the ‘any amount’ element of HRS § 712-1243,” and his possession did not actually cause or threaten the harm sought to be prevented by the law. The court further stated that it considered the stipulated testimony of Dr. Read, but discounted it because the court was uncertain about its continued reliability in light of its age. The court concluded that the relevant attendant circumstances were more persuasive and indicated that the cocaine Melendez possessed could not have had a pharmacological or physiological effect. Particularly, the court found it reasonable to infer that Melendez, as an individual under HOPE probation supervision, was “keenly aware of the ‘useability’ or ‘saleability’ of .005 grams of a substance containing an unspecified amount of cocaine.” Since Melendez had not ingested the cocaine in his possession it was reasonable to conclude that the cocaine would not have had a pharmacological or physiological effect. Furthermore, the court found that .005 grams of cocaine is not capable of sale as a narcotic. Finally, the court concluded that the fact that Melendez was not in possession of any items associated with drug use and was not 7 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER under the influence of any drugs weighed strongly in favor of the violation being de minimis.