Opinion ID: 1103881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: statutory definition of cocaine violates constitution

Text: Sanders argues that the overbroad definition of cocaine in the statute renders it void for vagueness. His first basis for this is the opinion of Outlaw during trial that the statute defines two substances, a D cocaine which is harmless and L cocaine which is a narcotic. As to this contention, if the substance examined by the experts was inert and harmless, counsel should have developed this at the trial level. His second basis is the contention the statute names a non-existent drug, and to support this contention he simply cites us to a pharmaceutical publication, presumably for this Court to do his work. Counsel was under a duty to present his contention as to the validity of this statute to the circuit judge. See: Stewart v. City of Pascagoula, 206 So.2d 325 (Miss. 1968); State ex rel. Carr v. Cabana Terrace, 247 Miss. 26, 153 So.2d 257 (1963); Comfort v. Landrum, 52 So.2d 658 (Miss. 1951). Moreover, as above noted, counsel's brief fails to support such contention. [3]