State v. Cianelli
| Decision Date | 10 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 12927,13051,s. 12927 |
| Citation | 612 P.2d 550,101 Idaho 313 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Frank Joseph CIANELLI, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Raymond Charles JEFF, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Greg J. Fuller, Jones & Fuller, Jerome, for defendant-appellant.
David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
Appellants bring these consolidated appeals from their respective judgments of conviction for delivery of cocaine. The sole issue is the constitutionality of the legislature's classification of cocaine as a Schedule II controlled substance. I.C. §§ 37-2701(o )(4) and -2707(b)(4). In particular, defendants maintain that the legislature's classification of cocaine as a narcotic for regulatory and penalty purposes is in conflict with constitutional principles of due process, equal protection, and cruel and unusual punishment. Defendants cite Illinois and Michigan cases, e. g., People v. McCabe, 49 Ill.2d 338, 275 N.E.2d 407 (1971); People v. Sinclair, 387 Mich. 91, 194 N.W.2d 878 (1972), in which the courts of those states invalidated legislation regulating marijuana use. Those courts apparently felt that their state legislatures overreacted to the marijuana problem. We are not inclined to similarly curtail the Idaho legislature's ability to deal with the societal evils which it feels are presented by illicit use of cocaine.
At the outset, we reject defendants' contention that the possession of cocaine is a fundamental right. See State v. Kincaid, 98 Idaho 440, 566 P.2d 763 (1977). The legislation in question is therefore subject only to that limited judicial scrutiny characteristic of the familiar "rational relationship" test. See Jones v. State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 866, 555 P.2d 399, 406 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2173, 52 L.Ed.2d 223 (1977).
Other state and federal courts have held that classifying cocaine as a narcotic for penal purposes bears a rational relationship to legitimate legislative goals. United States v. Hobbs, 392 F.Supp. 444 (D.Mass.1975); State v. Erickson, 574 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1978); Cardwell v. State, 575 S.W.2d 682 (Ark.1979); People v. Billi, 90 Misc.2d 568, 395 N.Y.S.2d 353 (Sup.1977); State v. Stitt, 24 Wash.App. 260, 600 P.2d 671 (1979). Accordingly, we hold that the classification of cocaine as a Schedule II controlled substance in I.C. §§ 37-2701(o )(4) and -2707(b)(4) is constitutional.
Affirmed.
Prefatorily I must admit a personal prejudice against the unlawful use of all drugs and the lawful use of tobacco, as well. Having had no exposure to cocaine, I know nothing about it, and, personally, am willing to assume that its unprescribed use is bad, as the legislature apparently feels to be the case. The fact remains, however, that I do not know. Today we are handed an appellant's brief which seeks to assure us that cocaine is not inherently a harmful drug, and is not entitled to the classification which the legislature has given it, by reason of which the appellant should not be facing ten years in the penitentiary.
The Michigan Supreme Court, in People v. Sinclair, 387 Mich. 91, 194 N.W.2d 878, 881 (1972), felt constrained to determine "whether this Court has the power to determine the actual state of facts concerning marijuana and other drugs," holding that its power cannot be doubted. The Illinois Supreme Court, faced with the same problem, noted that "(a)ppropriate respect should be given to the fact of a legislative classification, but there is a judicial obligation to insure that the power to classify has not been exercised arbitrarily and, if it has been, the legislation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kellogg
..." Id. at 866, 555 P.2d at 406 (quoting Berry v. Koehler, 84 Idaho 170, 177, 369 P.2d 1010, 1014 (1961).) See State v. Cianelli, 101 Idaho 313, 612 P.2d 550 (1980). The interest of the state in setting minimum educational standards as a prerequisite to applying for a license to practice medi......
-
State v. Dudley, 13755
...§§ 37-2701(o )(4) and 37-2707(b)(4). Subsequent to the trial court's ruling in this case, the Idaho Supreme Court, in State v. Cianelli, 101 Idaho 313, 612 P.2d 550 (1980), upheld the constitutionality of that classification, against the same attacks which Dudley made below. Nothing in the ......
-
State Of Idaho v. Brown
...holding: "At the outset we reject defendant's contention that possession of cocaine is a fundamental right." State v. Cianelli, 101 Idaho 313, 314, 612 P.2d 550, 551 (1980). We see no reason to treat methamphetamine differently from cocaine for purposes of a substantive due process analysis......