Court Opinion

ID: 9707916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:24:42.293827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:39.944331
License: Public Domain

Otis, Justice
(dissenting).
The matter of finding legislative intent is not the problem I *15have with this case. That question has been laid to rest by the majority opinion. What I cannot accept is a felony conviction for conduct which does not and cannot pose a threat to society or interfere with the health, safety, or morals of the public.
This defendant had in his possession 1/2800 of an ounce of marijuana, a quantity so minute it could not be chemically analyzed and could only be microscopically identified. It is not claimed that the amount was usable or salable. No attempt is made to relate the statute, as it applies to microscopic particles, to any legitimate public purpose. What we have done is approve a prison term for having in possession a substance wholly innocuous in itself but which gives rise to suspicion that defendant has been guilty of a more serious offense for which he has not been tried or convicted.
In effect, the statute presumes that possession of any quantity of marijuana proves beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant on some other occasion had in his possession or sold to a third person a usable amount of the drug. Such presumptions are invalid.1
A statute which proscribes conduct that in its nature is innocent violates due process.2 I believe this is such a case. Although defendant has not squarely addressed himself to the question, I feel it is appropriate for us to consider the matter sua sponte. I would reverse.

 State v. Kelly, 218 Minn. 247, 15 N. W. 2d 554 (1944); State v. Edwards, 269 Minn. 343, 130 N. W. 2d 623 (1964).

 People v. Bunis, 9 N. Y. 2d 1, 3, 210 N. Y. S. 2d 505, 506, 172 N. E. 2d 273, 274 (1961); People v. Munoz, 9 N. Y. 2d 51, 58, 211 N. Y. S. 2d 146, 151, 172 N. E. 2d 535, 539 (1961); People v. Belcastro, 356 Ill. 144, 147, 190 N. E. 301, 303 (1934); Commonwealth v. O’Harrah (Ky. App.) 262 S. W. 2d 385, 388 (1953); State v. Labato, 7 N. J. 137, 148, 80 A. 2d 617, 622 (1951).