Court Opinion

ID: 9715885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:18:45.054714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:39.322151
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Schaefer dissenting: In my opinion the judgment should be reversed because the People failed to prove that the substance sold by the defendant to agent Arpaio was heroin. There was no evidence of any analysis of the white powder by a qualified chemist. The “field test” relied upon in the opinion indicated no more than that the sjubstance tested may have been heroin; it did not prove that it was. This is clear from the testimony of the agents themselves. Agent Arpaio testified: “A field test consists of Marquis reagent in which, when you apply a substance believed to be heroin, it would turn a purplish color. If it does so, it shows a positive reaction and it may be heroin. That is the result I got here. I have heard of an ingredient known as dormin. Recently it has been proved that it can react in that manner.” (Italics supplied.) Agent Waltz testified: “The field test consists of a vial which contains hydrochloric acid and formaldehyde. When an opium derivative is placed into this solution, it turns red and then a dark purple. This does not prove, but indicates the presence of an opium derivative. I believe there are some other substances which would react in a similar way. I am familiar with the product known as ‘dormin’. It would react in a similar way, but not the same way. It would turn to that color, but in a different degree.” (Italics supplied.) The defendant has thus been found guilty of the sale of heroin upon testimony which, at the very most, established that what he sold might have been heroin. Hershey and Klingbiel, JJ., join in this dissent.