Court Opinion

ID: 9595720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:42:51.296775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:30.565469
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(dissenting). I am unable to join in the Court’s disposition of this case.
I agree with the Chief Justice that the Legislature did not intend to proscribe possession of a mere residue of a controlled substance.
The purpose of the statute is to protect the public from the harm claimed to be caused by the use of drugs. Possession of a minuscule amount which cannot be used or distributed for use and which can cause no harm is not within the intendment of the statute and is not a criminal offense.
The people sought to establish possession of a larger amount of heroin circumstantially with evidence of track marks to show that the defendant used the heroin. The prosecutor conceded that without such evidence the people could not prove that the remnant was part of a larger amount or that a larger amount was ever in Harrington’s possession.
I also find myself in agreement with Justice Williams regarding the dangers of evidence suggestive of a defendant’s status as an addict. See Robinson v California, 370 US 660; 82 S Ct 1417; 8 L Ed 2d 758 (1962). I would go further, however, and require the people to prove violation of the narcotics laws without track-mark evidence. The risk that a defendant will be convicted because the jury believes he is an addict outweighs the probative value of track-mark evidence and is far too great to allow introduction of such proofs.*

 McMcCormick, Evidence (2d ed), § 185, pp 438-439.