Court Opinion

ID: 9592599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:15:36.057268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:13.544046
License: Public Domain

SCHUDSON, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). Concluding that Lee and Casey do not have standing, the majority has done little more than invoke well-settled standing principles that are not at issue. Thus, the majority has failed even to acknowledge the *272substantial theory of standing that Lee and Casey have presented to this court:
The cocaine base statute, as applied to these defendants, forecloses a defense based upon a reasonable doubt whether the substances in question are cocaine base or some other innocuous substance with the same chemical formula. For that reason, Lee and Casey are affected directly by the statute for they can be convicted whether the state proves the substance is cocaine base or some other isomer such as scopolamine.
The defendants have standing because they are directly affected by the overly broad definition of cocaine base which precludes them from defending this charge by showing the substance may not have been ¿-cocaine base, but just a harmless isomer. The definition of cocaine base makes it irrelevant whether the defendants in fact possessed scopolam-ine or /-cocaine base, because both substances are prohibited.
Lee and Casey state that they "intend to defend these cases in part by challenging the state's ability to prove the substances they possessed were in fact Cocaine base." Indeed, they made that point forcefully before the trial court:
THE COURT: The state apparently claims that it can prove that this substance, or that it intends to prove at trial, that this substance is cocaine base, not relying on any isomer theory to get to the jury. Apparently they feel they can prove this is cocaine base to the exclusion of anything that might be a deodorant or horse sweat or hair—
MR. SHELLOW [counsel for Lee and Casey]: Ord-cocaine.
*273THE COURT: Or any isomer. If they can prove that at trial as they've alleged, they simply allege this is cocaine base. They didn't say they were going to prove it's an isomer. Why does your client have any standing to—
MR. SHELLOW: That's the standing question.
THE COURT: Do you agree that the state expects or you expect the state to be able to prove that this is cocaine base and not rely on some isomer theory to get to the jury?
MR. SHELLOW: The state says that it will prove that this is cocaine base and is not one of either the other seven isomers or either 1300 regular isomers.
THE COURT: Do you intend to argue at trial that the state hasn't proved that, that their expert might have just established that it's one of the isomers?
MR. SHELLOW: Not only will I do it, if the state takes that position, I'll prove it out of the mouth of the first chemist the state calls.
The State, however, has taken apparently inconsistent positions before the trial court and on appeal. Before the trial court the prosecutor stated, "The state's required to prove the substance in this particular case is cocaine base and we can do that. I'm not talking about anything other than cocaine base." On appeal, however, the State writes that "it is premature in the present case to require the state to prove that the substances in question are Z-cocaine base as opposed to some other isomer of cocaine base." Is it premature? Perhaps, but the very authorities on which the State relies suggest that, quite possibly, the time is ripe.
*274In United States v. Puglisi, 790 F.2d 240, 242 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 827 (1986), the court noted:
"Although the government has the burden ... of proving every element of the offense charged, it has no burden of proving that a term used in its commonly understood sense has no other possible meaning — at least until the possibility of another meaning is raised by the defense."
Id. at 242 (ellipses in Puglisi-, emphasis added; quoting United States v. Francesco, 725 F.2d 817, 821 (1st Cir. 1984)). Here, the defense has raised the possibility of another meaning.
Similarly, in Best v. State, 556 A.2d 701 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1989), another case quoted at length by the State, the court stated:
When all of our experience shows that the cocaine recovered from drug traffickers is the natural derivative of the coca leaf, there arises a . . . presumption that any substance shown by normal testing to be cocaine is that natural derivative. The burden of production is cast upon the party raising the remote and exotic possibility to generate a genuine jury issue in that regard. If and when that is done, the presumption is dissipated — the bubble bursts — and the burden is rightfully cast upon the prosecution to negate such a possibility.
Id. at 719 (emphasis added). The Best court went on to hold "that to generate a genuine jury issue in this regard does not mean simply raising the theoretical possibility of such a substance. It requires some evidence that the nontraditional isomer is actually present in a given case." Id. (emphasis added).
*275Does that mean, as the State argues on appeal, that "[u]ntil and unless" Lee and Casey claim "that they believe the substances at issue in their cases are any specific isomer or isomers of cocaine base that should not be controlled substances," they lack standing? Or is Lee and Casey's trial court argument that they would expose the State's failure to prove that the substance was "not one of either the other seven isomer or either 1300 regular isomers" a sufficient representation raising more than a theoretical possibility? The authorities are unclear and the majority, with apparently flippant dispatch, merely comments, "Anyone charged with possessing or delivering an isomer that is harmless can challenge the statute at that time." Majority op. at 271 n.7. That misses the issue and evades the cogent arguments presented by Lee and Casey, and by the State.
I recognize that Lee and Casey's isomer theory of defense may not be a theory that courts will accept. See Best, 556 A.2d at 717-719. In the cross-appeal of this case, however, the State has not pursued that argument. Thus, in this case we must consider not whether such a theory of defense is potentially viable as a matter of law, but rather, whether a defendant has standing to challenge a theory of prosecution that precludes that theory of defense.
Although Lee and Casey have offered powerful arguments to support their standing to challenge the potential preclusion of their theory of defense, the issue may be moot because the State, in the trial court, conceded that it is "required to prove the substance in this particular case is cocaine base." If, however, the State is not bound by that position and instead seeks to pursue a different strategy, then Lee and Casey would have standing to challenge a theory of prosecution that *276would preclude their theory of defense. Because the majority has failed to accurately identify or address the standing issue, I respectfully dissent on the cross-appeal.