Court Opinion

ID: 9578369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:44:32.629115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:59.013202
License: Public Domain

Brailsford, Justice
(dissenting) :
I must conclude that the indictment is fatally deficient in failing to charge an offense in substantially the language of the statute or otherwise alleging the essential elements of the offense intended to be charged. The relevant provisions of the statute make it unlawful to possess (unless obtained by prescription) a drug “which contains any quantity of a substance which the State Board of Health and the appropriate Federal drug authorities have found to have, and by regulation designated as having a potential for abuse because of its depressant or stimulant effect on the central nervous system or its hallucinogenic effect.” Act No. 915, Acts of 1966, Sec. 2(d), Sec. 1(a) (3).
*137The indictment charges that the defendant violated “Section 32-1506, paragraph 2d of the 1962 Code of Laws” 1 by possessing a quantity of drugs not obtained by medical prescription, “said drugs designated as having a potential for abuse because of its depressant or stimulant effect on the central nervous system or its hallucinogenic effect, namely Librium.” The meaning of the accusatory language is obscure. It even falls short of charging that the drug did contain a substance “having a potential for abuse because of its depressant or stimulant effect . ” Clearly, it failed to allege that the drug contained a substance which, in the words of the statute, “the State Board of Health and the appropriate Federal drug authorities have found to have, and by regulation designated as having a potential for abuse . . . . ” Act No. 915, Acts of 1966, Sec. 1(a) (3), referred to in the majority opinion as Section 32-1505(a) (3) of the Code.
The indictment makes no attempt to charge possession of an “illegal drug” as defined by Section 1(b) of the Act, referred to in the majority opinion as Section 32-1505 (b) of the Code, to which the opinion mistakenly, in my view, resorts, after having recognized that, “The offense charged in the indictment is the crime set out in Section 32-1506 (d) of the Code, as amended, with appropriate definitions set out in Section 32-1505(a) (3), as amended.” 2
I would reverse the judgment appealed from.
Bussey, J., concurs.

 There is no such code section. The reference should have been to Act No. 915 of 1966 as amended by Act No. 1187 of 1970.

 See Act No. 915 of 1966, Sec. 2(d) and Sec. 1(a) (3).