State v. Light
| Decision Date | 14 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 175 Ariz. 62,852 P.2d 1246 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Gary Donald LIGHT, Appellant. 91-1397. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
The sole issue in this appeal is whether there was evidence that the substance sold by defendant was a dangerous drug as defined by A.R.S. § 13-3401(6)(b). We affirm.
Appellant Gary Donald Light (defendant) and two undercover police officers met at a hotel in Kingman to discuss the possible sale to defendant of a 55-pound drum of ephedrine, a substance used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. During this discussion, the officers asked if defendant could provide them with some methamphetamine, or "go-fast," for their trip home. Defendant responded by accepting $200 and giving them a cigarette pack containing a baggie with a powder substance that later tested positive for methamphetamine. Defendant was subsequently indicted on one count of sale of dangerous drugs, a class 2 felony.
At trial, the state's criminalist testified that the 3.04 grams of powder in the cigarette pack contained methamphetamine. He further testified that 10 milligrams, or 1 1/100 of a gram, of methamphetamine is a usable amount.
A jury found defendant guilty as charged. The court sentenced defendant to an aggravated term of eight years imprisonment.
In Arizona, sale of a dangerous drug is a class 2 felony. A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(7), (B)(7). "Dangerous drug," within the context of this case, is defined by § 13-3401(6) as:
(b) Any material, compound, mixture or preparation which contains any quantity of the following substances ... having a potential for abuse associated with a stimulant effect on the central nervous system:
. . . . .
(xii) Methamphetamine.
Defendant contends that, in addition to proof that the substance he sold was methamphetamine, under this statutory definition the state must also prove that the substance sold had "a potential for abuse associated with a stimulant effect on the central nervous system." Because the state's criminalist declined to testify regarding the reaction a person would have from ingestion of methamphetamine, defendant argues that the state presented no evidence as to an essential element of the crime charged.
Under defendant's interpretation of A.R.S. § 13-3401(6)(b), a "dangerous drug" must (1) be one of the drugs enumerated in subsections (i) through (xxiv), and (2) have "a potential for abuse associated with a stimulant effect on the central nervous system." In our opinion, however, the legislature has defined "dangerous drug" in this statutory definition as being a substance that has "a potential for abuse associated with a stimulant effect on the central nervous system"--in this case, methamphetamine. The state need not prove that methamphetamine has a potential for abuse associated with a stimulant effect on the central nervous system because the legislature has already made the determination that it does.
As the state notes, a similar resolution was reached by the Idaho Supreme Court in State v. Collinsworth, 96 Idaho 910, 539 P.2d 263 (1975). In that case, the defendant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance, which was defined as:
(c) ... [A]ny material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Samatar
...F.2d 1199; United States v. White (C.A.7, 1977), 560 F.2d 787; United States v. Nickles (C.A.5, 1975), 509 F.2d 810; State v. Light (App.1993), 175 Ariz. 62, 852 P.2d 1246; State v. Hernandez (App.1986), 104 N.M. 97, 717 P.2d 73; State v. Ali (Minn.App.2000), 613 N.W.2d 796; State v. Collin......
-
State v. Ali, No. C2-00-70.
...States v. White, 560 F.2d 787, 790 (7th Cir.1977); United States v. Nickles, 509 F.2d 810, 811 (5th Cir.1975); State v. Light, 175 Ariz. 62, 852 P.2d 1246, 1248 (Ct.App.1993); People v. Moran, 983 P.2d 143, 147 (Colo.Ct.App.1999); State v. Collinsworth, 96 Idaho 910, 539 P.2d 263, 267-68 (1......
-
People v. Moran
...United States v. Nickles, 509 F.2d 810 (5th Cir.1975); United States v. Levin, 443 F.2d 1101 (8th Cir.1971); State v. Light, 175 Ariz. 62, 852 P.2d 1246 (App.1993); People v. Sherman, 57 Cal.App.4th 102, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 764 (1997); State v. Collinsworth, 96 Idaho 910, 539 P.2d 263 (1975); St......
-
Bernal v. Jensen
...A.R.S. § 13-3401(6)(c)(xxxviii). Therefore, the legislature has determined that it is a dangerous drug. See State v. Light, 175 Ariz. 62, 63-64 (App. 1993) (finding state need not prove that methamphetamine is a dangerous drug because the legislature has already made that determination). Th......