Opinion ID: 880214
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the District Court err in denying appellant's challenge to the statute designating marijuana as a dangerous drug?

Text: Sections 45-9-101, 50-32-101 and 50-32-222, MCA, are the statutes wherein the legislature has declared marijuana a dangerous drug and designated as a crime the sale of dangerous drugs. Essentially appellant argues that at trial the State should have had to prove that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that it is a hallucinogenic substance. We specifically rejected this contention in State v. Petko (1978), 177 Mont. 229, 581 P.2d 425, where we stated: Marijuana is grouped with hallucinogenic drugs, but this does not call for the trier of fact to make a specific finding as to its hallucinogenic capabilities. The legislature has made that determination. Petko, 581 P.2d at 430. The State is only required to prove that the substance appellant sold was marijuana which it did. We reject appellant's contentions.