Court Opinion

ID: 9708082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:29:55.899221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:42.164465
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
dissenting.
The total weight of the “controlled substance” involved here, including the 1% by 2 inch piece of newspaper in which it was folded was only 5 milligrams. In terms of ordinary American usage, that is less than 2/10,000’s of an ounce. The laboratory technician did not know how much of that infinitesimal weight was the piece of newspaper. The substance was washed out of the newspaper before testing and the newspaper was discarded. The tests did not ascertain the percentage of cocaine. There was no test as to purity. There was no test as to whether the substance was active or inactive *380biologically or physiologically. The substance was entirely used up in the tests to determine what it was.
The Uniform Controlled Substances Act makes possession of a controlled' substance a crime unless the possession is authorized by the act. The Legislature did not establish any minimum amounts of a controlled substance, possession of which is requisite for a criminal conviction.
Under similar statutes, some courts, and now this court, have interpreted the language to ban the possession of even the most minute traces of any narcotic or controlled substance. Other courts have held to the contrary. We believe the better rule to be that possession of a minute quantity of a controlled substance, useless as a drug, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for knowing possession of a controlled substance. See, People v. Leal, 50 Cal. Rptr. 777, 413 P. 2d 665 (1966); Watson v. State (Nev., 1972), 495 P. 2d 365; State v. Haddock, 101 Ariz. 240, 418 P. 2d 577 (1966).
The substance used as the basis for prosecution ought to be of such a quantity and quality as to be susceptible of use as a drug. The intent necessary to establish the crime of possession simply does not exist when the amount is so minute as to be incapable of being applied to any use, even though chemical analysis may identify a trace of a prohibited drug.
Boslaugh and Clinton, «TJ., join in this dissent.