Opinion ID: 2101095
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of Indictment, description of Narcotics

Text: Appellant emphasizes alleged infirmities in the use of cannabis sativa L and marijuana as effectively specifying the narcotic drug prohibited by the statute. It is pointed out by appellant, and conceded by the State, that cannabis sativa L. is the botanical name of a plant, portions of which, excluding the mature stock, have narcotic quality. This distinction is recognized in Section 2361, supra. The narcotic quality exists in a resin (cannabin, cannabinon) and a volatile oil (cannabinol) within the leaves and flowering tops (cannabis) of the plant. See The Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs (1952) and Van Norstrand's Scientific Encyc. (1968), Hemp. The euphoriant elements are released by heat (the act of smoking the dried portions, as in a cigarette). Appellant urges that the possession of the plant is not per se possession of a narcotic substance. Appellant analogizes the use of cannabis sativa L with the use of liquor in State v. Bellmore, 144 Me. 231, 67 A.2d 531. The proscription in Bellmore was against intoxicating liquor and the Court held that pleading liquor was pleading a generic term which included both intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquid and was insufficient to charge the possession of intoxicating liquor. The proposed analogy fails, for while there can be liquor without intoxicating quality, there can be no cannabis sativa L without cannabis, which latter by statutory definition is a narcotic drug. The botanical term for the plant in which a narcotic element is inherent, was used to specify the type of prohibited narcotics which appellant allegedly possessed. It is further urged that possession of marijuana is not proscribed by the statute and is but a generic or slang term which has no standing in criminal pleading. It is true that the term marijuana did not appear within the statutory definition of narcotic drugs under which appellant was charged, and while once the word may have referred generically to a type of wild tobacco or hemp (Webster's Third New International Dictionary) or in a slang sense blended with a personal name, Maria Juana or Mary Jane, (Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition, 1959) it has long since established an etymologically reputable identity in source books, both general and scientific, where it is defined as a drug obtained from the top leaves and flowers of the Indian-hemp plant, Cannabis sativa,    14 Encyc. Brit., 1962 Ed., The leaves and flowering tops of Cannabis sativa,    Dorland's Illus. Med.Dict. 24th Ed. The Spanish name for the dried leaves and flowering tops of the hemp plant, Cannabis sativa,    8 McGraw-Hill Encyc. of Science and Technology, 1966 Ed., Drug obtained from the flowering tops of the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, Columbia Encyc. (1963 Ed.). By scientific definition the leaves and flowering tops are both cannabis and marijuana, and cannabis by statutory definition is a narcotic drug. These definitions and the synonymity of cannabis and marijuana have been recognized in law. See State v. Navaro, 83 Utah 6, 26 P.2d 955 [1-3], 2d. col. 958 (1933); State v. Romero, 74 N.M. 642, 397 P.2d 26 [1], 29 (1964); and Martinez v. People, 160 Colo. 333, 417 P.2d 485 [1], 486 (1966, judicial notice). The meaning of the term marijuana is well and commonly known. Navaro, supra, [4] 26 P.2d 959, and State v. Jackson, 239 A.2d 215 [6], 217 (Del.Super.1968). It is more specific than cannabis sativa L. and more informative to a person of common understanding in March of 1969. It cannot be seriously contended that the use of the common word marijuana as specifying the narcotic drug allegedly possessed by the appellant did not adequately inform him of the accusation. The charge, in this respect, met all requirements of Rule 7 M.R.Crim.Proc., State v. Child, 158 Me. 242, 182 A.2d 675, 17 A.L.R.3d 1275, and State v. Charette, 159 Me. 124, 188 A. 2d 898.