Court Opinion

ID: 9701079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:03:42.915764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:19.009068
License: Public Domain

*636Orth, J.,
dissenting:
The appellant was convicted of having in his possession on 9 February 1968 the drug DMT. I do not believe that the laws of this State proscribed the possession of DMT at the time the appellant was alleged to have possessed it.
The status of the law on 9 February 1968 was that, with exceptions not here applicable, it was unlawful for any person to have in his possession a narcotic drug— Md. Code, Art. 27, § 277, a barbiturate — Art. 27, § 313C-(a) and Art. 43, § 285(4), an amphetamine — Art. 27, § 313C(a), and LSD — Art. 27, § 122B(c). DMT does not fall within the definition of a narcotic drug, Art. 27, § 276 (o) and is not a barbiturate or an amphetamine. Its possession was not specifically proscribed by any statute. However, by a provision of Chapter 657, Acts. 1967, codified as Art. 27, § 122B(c) the possession of “the drug or compound known generally as LSD” was unlawful. By subsection (f) of that section LSD was stated to mean “the drug or compound described as ‘D-Lysergic acid diethylamide’ or ‘7-methylindolo [4, 3-fg] quinoline-9-carboxylic acid’ and any other similar or comparable drug or compound.” Thus the possession of DMT was prohibited only if it is a drug or compound similar or comparable to LSD. I think it clear from the language of § 122B(f) that the terms “similar or comparable” refer only to chemical properties. That another drug or compound may be “similar or comparable” to LSD as to its effect — hallucinogenic; as to its physical properties— color, appearance, melting point and solubility, for example; or as to the amount and duration of effective dosage, would not make it “similar or comparable” within the frame of reference of the statute. DMT is dimethyle tryplamine. Its chemical formula is C12H16N2, and it is described as 3-2 dimethylamino-ethyle (indole). I think it patent that it does not derive from the same parent substance as LSD, is not chemically the same as LSD, and that its chemical properties are not similar or *637comparable to LSD. I feel that the testimony of the only expert witness in the instant case, while it could have been more definitive, supports this conclusion. Therefore, although I agree that the judgment must be set aside because the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction and thus the trial court erred in its denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of all the evidence, I would remand with direction to enter a judgment of acquittal rather than vacate the judgment with the directions spelled out by the majority. I have no difficulty in determining that the State is not able to adduce probative evidence that LSD and DMT are “similar or comparable” within the statutory meaning of those terms because I think that in fact they are not. See Gray v. State, 254 Md. 385, Court of Appeals of Maryland.
I note that although, in my opinion, the possession of DMT was not proscribed at the time of the commission of the offense here, its possession is now unlawful. Chapter 519, Acts 1968, effective 1 July 1968, repealed former § 313B of Art. 27 dealing with the manufacture and sale of amphetamines and enacted a new § 313B. New § 313B(d) proscribes the possession of any depressant or stimulant drug. By the definition set out in subsection (a) (5) (iv) a “depressant or stimulant drug” means “any drug containing any quantity of any substance designated under the provisions of the Federal Drug Act as having potential for abuse to its hallucinogenic effect or its depressant or stimulant effect on the central nervous system; but shall not mean any narcotic drug as defined by § 276 of Article 27 of this Code.” It is my understanding that DMT was on 1 July 1968 and is now a controlled drug under the Federal Drug Act.