Court Opinion

ID: 9578370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:44:32.634508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:59.034557
License: Public Domain

Bussey, Justice
(dissenting) :
I fully concur in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Brailsford but desire to point out additional reasons why the conviction should not be allowed to stand.
The brief of appellant raises a quite serious question as to the constitutionality of Sec. 1(a) (3) of Act No. 915, *138Acts of 1966, as amended by Act No. 1144 of the Acts of 1970. See the case of State of South Dakota v. Johnson etc., 84 S. D. 556, 173 N. W. (2d) 894, and the authorities therein cited. Such constitutional issue, in my view, cannot be soundly avoided by erroneously concluding that the particular section of the Act did not constitute a part of the charge against the appellant. It is, however, unnecessary to reach the constitutional issue for a quite different reason.
Assuming the constitutionality of the challenged section, under the plain language thereof and the language of the indictment, there was, in my view, error below in charging the jury that librium was a “depressant” as a matter of law and in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty for failure of proof. Whether or not librium is a “depressant”, the possession of which without a prescription is prohibited by said Act, is dependent entirely upon the provisions of Sec. 1 (a) (3) as amended, which defines the term “depressant or ■stimulant drug” as follows:
“Any drug which contains any quantity of a substance which the State Board of Health and the appropriate Federal drug authorities have found to have, and by regulation designated as having, a potential for abuse because of its depressant or stimulant effect on the central nervous system or its hallucinogenic effect.”
While Lt. Wilson did testify that “librium” was a “depressant”, there is a total absence of any evidence that it is a depressant within the purview and intent of the statutory language, just above quoted.
In appellant’s brief it is pointed out that the indictment did not refer to librium by its chemical or generic name and asserted that “Librium” is known chemically as chlor-diazepoxide hydrochloride or chlordiazepoxide HC1”, citing Physician’s Desk Reference, 26th Ed., 1927, p. 1137. Neither the cited authority nor any similar work is immediately available to the author, but such technical definition of librium is not questioned by the respondent.
*139Pursuant to the authority of Act No. 915 of the Acts of 1966, the State Board of Health, on November 3rd, 1969, promulgated and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State a regulation as to “Drugs having potential for abuse and habit forming.” 1970 Acts and Joint Resolutions, page 3569. While numerous drugs are classified in said regulation as having either a “stimulant” or “depressant” effect on the central nervous system, or a hallucinogenic effect, neither the word “librium” nor the terms “chlordiazepoxide hydrochloride or chlordiazepoxide HC1” appear in said regulation. If, perchance, librum is included within some other specific or generic term used in the regulation, such has not been shown by the State by evidence or otherwise. The mentioned regulation appears to be the only one adopted by the State Board of Health pursuant to the particular Act prior to the date of the alleged offense. What, if any, pertinent regulation by the “appropriate Federal drug authorities” was -in force and effect at the time of the alleged offense does not appear.
I would accordingly vacate the judgment below and remand for the entry of a judgment of acquittal.