Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Davis

California Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 2013No. S198434Published

1Concurrence

CHIN, J., Concurring.

I concur. The People proved that the blue pills defendant sold to the undercover police officer contained 3,4-methylene-dioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), commonly known as Ecstasy, but it failed to prove that MDMA is a controlled substance. Accordingly, defendant’s convictions of selling and possessing a controlled substance cannot stand.

It appears that MDMA is a controlled substance, specifically, that it is either an analog of, or contains, a controlled substance, either amphetamine or methamphetamine. (People v. Becker (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1155-1156 [107 Cal.Rptr.3d…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. David Carlson, United States of America v. Carina Leveriza, A/K/A Carina Franz, A/K/A Karen, United States of America v. Walter FranzCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1996
  2. People v. SilverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  3. People v. BeckerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API