People v. Riddle

Decision Date12 November 1975
Docket NumberDocket No. 20007
Citation65 Mich.App. 433,237 N.W.2d 491
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary William RIDDLE, Defendant-Appellant. 65 Mich.App. 433, 237 N.W.2d 491
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

[65 MICHAPP 434] James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., John D. Berlin, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before ALLEN, P.J., and DANHOF and CAVANAGH, JJ.

ALLEN, Presiding Judge.

One of numerous issues raised on appeal has never been decided by an appellate court in Michigan. What was the intent of the Legislature in the Controlled Substances Act of 1971, 1 when it defined marihuana as 'all parts of [65 MICHAPP 435] the plant Cannabis sativa L.'? M.C.L.A. § 335.305(3); M.S.A. § 18.1070(5)(3).

Defendant was arrested and charged with delivery of marihuana, contrary to M.C.L.A. § 335.341(1)(c); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(1)(c). At his bench trial, defendant stipulated he had sold a substance to an undercover policeman, and conceded the substance's chain of possession to the police laboratory. The prosecution, in its case in chief, called a state forensic chemist as the only prosecution witness. Based upon microscopic examination and the results of the Dequenois-Lavine test, this expert identified the substance as marihuana. She admitted on cross-examination to having heard of the three species theory of Cannabis, but testified that it was all Cannabis Sativa to her.

The defense theory was there are at least three species of marihuana, only Cannabis Sativa L. is a controlled substance within the Controlled Substances Act of 1971, and hence, the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance delivered was marihuana within the meaning of the Act. To support the view that marihuana is polytypic, the defense called botanist Dr. Monroe R. Birdsey who testified that in his opinion there exist at least three species of marihuana: Cannabis Sativa, Cannabis Indica, and Cannabis Ruderalis. He cited other authority for his position.

In rebuttal, the prosecution called Dr. Arthur Cronquist of the New York Botanical Gardens, who testified that he among others viewed Cannabis as a single species, and that the other so-called species are but varieties of Cannabis Sativa.

In finding defendant guilty as charged, the trial court stated it 'tended to agree' with the evidence that marihuana is monotypic or a single species. However, it is evident that the lower court regarded[65 MICHAPP 436] the taxonomic dispute over the number of species of little moment. Relying on Federal cases facing the same question with respect to an identical definition in the Federal drug law, the lower court ruled that in 1971 the Legislature intended to adopt the scientific view then prevailing that marihuana was monotypic, and therefore, Cannabis Sativa means all Cannabis for purposes of the 1971 Act. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to 90 days in jail and 3 years probation.

Defendant contends that the trial court improperly derogated from the intent of the Legislature when it determined Cannabis Sativa means all Cannabis, essentially because there is no room for judicial construction of the technical and exact term Cannabis Sativa, a penal statute must be strictly construed, and Federal cases construing Federal law are inappropriate as a basis for determining the intent of the state Legislature.

We are compelled to reject the contention of defendant for various reasons. First, acceptance of defendant's narrow reading of the definition would, as a practical matter, render marihuana regulation ineffective. The record shows there are currently no methods for distinguishing Cannabis Sativa from other so-called species or varieties once the marihuana plant is chopped up. Unless the culprit is caught with the plant itself, convictions would appear unattainable, since the prosecution would be unable to present evidence specifically identifying the substance as Cannabis Sativa.

The record also indicates that the chemical ingredient 2 producing the euphoric effects is found in all the so-called species of marihuana. Defendant [65 MICHAPP 437] would have us hold that the Legislature intended to prohibit only one form of marihuana which is distinguishable from others, if at all, by its morphological characteristics. Moreover, under this approach, each time a taxonomist makes a judgment and adds another species to the marihuana plant the object of the law would be further thwarted. The Court cannot subscribe to such self-defeating legislative intent. We believe that the Controlled Substances Act of 1971 was not intended to serve as a textbook on botany and that if the Legislature believed that its definition of marihuana covered all forms of marijuana containing the hallucinogenic or euphoric chemical common in all so-called species or varieties of the plant, it is irrelevant for the purpose of the Act whether plant taxonomists recognize one, three, or numerous species. 3

The following reasons add support to our conclusion that in 1971 the Legislature believed marihuana was monotypic, and that its definition was intended to include all Cannabis plants producing a 'high'. Initially, at the time the Legislature enacted the Controlled Substances Act of 1971, there was ample judicial, as well as scientific authority, for the proposition that there was but a single species of the marijuana plant, to wit, Cannabis Sativa. See Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 50, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 1555, 23 L.Ed.2d 57, 90 (1969), United States v. Moore, 330 F.Supp. 684 (E.D.Pa.1970), Aff'd 446 F.2d 448 (C.A.3, 1971), Cert. denied, 406 U.S. 909, 92 S.Ct. 1617, 31 L.Ed.2d 820 (1972), Martinez v. People, 160 Colo. 333, 417 P.2d 485 (1966), State v. Alley, 263 A.2d 66 (Me.1970), State [65 MICHAPP 438] v. Romero, 74 N.M. 642, 397 P.2d 26 (1964), State v. Hall, 41 Wash.2d 446, 249 P.2d 769 (1952).

Moreover, our 1971 drug legislation is based upon the Uniform Controlled Substances Act 4 approved by the Uniform Conference of Commissioners of State Laws in 1970, 5 and which included an identical definition of marihuana. Congress also used the definition of marijuana as all parts of the plant Cannabis Satvia L., in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. 6 In rejecting an argument quite similar to instant defendant's, the Supreme Court of Iowa set forth the intent of the Commissioners of State Laws respecting the Uniform Controlled Substances Act:

'When the Uniform Controlled Substances Act was recommended to the states for adoption in 1970, the commissioners said:

'The Uniform Controlled Substances Act is designed to supplant the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1933, and the Model State Drug Abuse Control Act, relating to depressant, stimulant, and hallucinogenic drugs, promulgated in 1966. With the enactment of the new Federal narcotic and dangerous drug law * * * it is necessary that the States update and revise their narcotic, marihuana, and dangerous drug laws.

'This Uniform Act was drafted to achieve uniformity between the laws of the several States and those of the Federal government. It has been designed to complement the new Federal narcotic and dangerous drug legislation and provide an interlocking trellis of Federal and State law to enable government at all levels to control more effectively the drug abuse problem.' Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform [65 MICHAPP 439] State Laws, supra, at 223.' Cassady v. Wheeler, 224 N.W.2d 649, 651--652 (Iowa, 1974).

It thus appears germane for this Court to seriously consider the decisions of Federal courts, as well as court decisions of sister jurisdictions adopting a similar definition of marihuana, in order to fully realize the intent of our own Legislature.

We choose to follow the overwhelming number of courts which have confronted and rejected the argument that a definition of marihuana as Cannabis sativa within controlled substance legislation necessarily excludes other so-called...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Vail
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1979
    ...So.2d 154 (Fla. App.1975); Cassady v. Wheeler, 224 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa 1974); State v. Shaw, 343 A.2d 210 (Me.1975); People v. Riddle, 65 Mich.App. 433, 237 N.W.2d 491 (1976); State v. Thorp, 116 N.H. 303, 358 A.2d 655 (1976); State v. Romero, 74 N.M. 642, 397 P.2d 26 (1964), reiterated in Sta......
  • Commonwealth v. Trayer
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • July 2, 1980
    ... ... Federal court system and in a number of the states. See ... People v. Riddle, 65 Mich. Ct. App. 433, 237 N.W.2d ... 491 (1975); Raines v ... ...
  • People v. Rodriguez, Docket No. 22686--90
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • November 24, 1975
    ...indica or Cannabis ruderalis. Hence, no violation of the statute was proved. This Court has rejected this argument, People v. Riddle, Mich.App., 237 N.W.2d 491 (released Nov. 12, 8. Defendants have demonstrated no reversible error in the failure of the trial court to give their requested in......
  • People v. Derror
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • September 6, 2005
    ...is the psychoactive ingredient of marijuana. People v. Sinclair, 387 Mich. 91, 105-106, 194 N.W.2d 878 (1972); People v. Riddle, 65 Mich.App. 433, 436 n. 1, 237 N.W.2d 491 (1975). 4. People v. Schaefer, 473 Mich. 418, 703 N.W.2d 774 (2005). 5. As Justice Young noted in the opinion: Although......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT