Ecstasy in California not Considered Possession of Controlled Substance – 11350 (a) HS

Recently, in People v. Davis, CSC Case No. 198434, the California Supreme Court ruled that possession of ecstasy (MDMA or methylenedioxy-methylamphetamine) without additional evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of a controlled substance (11350 (a) HS).

Possession of Ecstasy in California Supreme Court

The case was centered on the 2009 arrest of 19-year old Zachary Davis, who allegedly sold 19 ecstasy pills to an undercover law enforcement officer. At trial, the criminalist for the prosecution tested the substance for traces of MDMA. However, the criminalist failed to discuss the chemical composition of the substance and its potential effects. While cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin are all specifically prohibited by the California Health and Safety Code, ecstasy is not under California state law.

The lower court judges erroneously concluded that the substance contained amphetamines prohibited under California Health & Safety Code sections 11377, 11378, and 11379 since the substance’s name did not include any reference to a neutralization or cancellation of the harmful ingredients. In order to maintain a valid conviction under the aforementioned code sections, an expert must establish that the substance in question is either an amphetamine, methamphetamine or has a similar chemical structure causing an effect on the central nervous system.

The court of appeal relied on several treatises to establish the effect on the nervous system and chemical structure. However, the California Supreme Court noted that the relied upon treatises and scientific papers were not presented to the jury to assist in the decision-making process. The Supreme Court noted that only matters of common knowledge, which average citizens know or are presumed to know, may be ignored by prosecutors when establishing proof of any fact necessary for conviction.

Impact on Possession of Controlled Substance Laws in California

What impact will this decision have on individuals arrested for possession of ecstasy? In light of the California Supreme Court’s ruling, prosecutors will need to be cautious in presenting any evidence to the jury.

• First, prosecutors can simply ask a testifying criminalist about ecstasy’s effects on the central nervous system or whether ecstasy contains amphetamines. In most situations, criminalists who have studied the relevant research will almost always provide sufficient testimony to sustain a conviction.
• Second, the state legislature could amend the Health and Safety Code to make possession of ecstasy expressly illegal. Currently, no such law exists.

In the absence of any new legislation, this recent decision means that prosecutors must jump through another hurdle when attempting to establish the facts necessary for a conviction. Defense lawyers must now be on the lookout for the prosecution’s failure to establish the illegality of ecstasy.

How Wallin & Klarich Can Help with Possession of Controlled Substance Charges

If you find yourself charged with any drug offense, contact the experienced Southern California drug defense lawyers at Wallin & Klarich. The knowledgeable criminal defense lawyers at Wallin & Klarich will ensure that your rights under the law are protected. We have more than 40 years of experience successfully defending clients in a variety of drug-related cases. Please contact us at (877) 466-5245 to discuss your case at absolutely no cost.