Boykin v. State

The majority’s guidelines for interpreting statutes are articulate and precise; how*787ever, the application of these guidelines to Article 4476-15b is clearly misguided. Because the majority’s “plain reading” of the statute leads to the absurd result that only drug dealers with the ability to call controlled substances by their statutory scientific terms can commit an offense under Section 2(a)(1) (hereafter “Subsection 1”), I dissent.

The Legislature provides two different methods in this statute for a person to represent that a delivered substance is a controlled substance.1 Subsection 1…