Opinion ID: 712827
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantive Charge of Misbranding (Count IX)

Text: 86 Thierman argues that the evidence presented on the count of misbranding for which he was convicted did not differ in any significant manner from the evidence of the other misbranding charges of which the jury acquitted him. The only variances, Thierman argues, were the prosecution's false insinuations that the recipient of the drugs was not a medical doctor, but the package sent to him used the term Dr., and testimony regarding an invoice which did not match the contents label. 5 Thierman goes on essentially to argue that the jury must have convicted him because the mismatching invoice and label resulted in misbranding--a theory at variance with the charging documents. The prosecution responds that it provided much evidence that the GHB Thierman sold during this time period was misbranded because of its deleterious nature. Moreover, the evidence regarding the invoice went to proving the element of intent to defraud or mislead rather than the element of misbranding. 87 Based on the evidence presented, a rational trier of fact could have found all the required elements to convict Thierman of count nine of the indictment. While it is strange that the jury convicted him of only the one count, a reasonable person could believe the drugs were misbranded for the purposes of all the counts, but only find the required intent to defraud or mislead in count nine due to the mismatching invoice. 88