Legal Opinion

People v. Davis

California Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 2013No. S198434PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CORRIGAN, J.

The question presented here is the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a given material is a controlled substance regulated by the Health and Safety Code. Specifically, may a jury properly infer that 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) is controlled based solely on its chemical name, when that substance is not listed in the code? We conclude that evidence of MDMA’s chemical name, standing alone, is insufficient to prove the material is a controlled substance.

I. BACKGROUND

At a rave party in Los Angeles on December 31, 2009, defendant Zachary Edward Davis sold…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. People v. MorseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  3. People v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  4. In Re SassounianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  5. People v. SengpadychithCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. People v. GoldsmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  2. In re Ramirez, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  3. People v. Johnson, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  4. People v. RodriguezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2020
  5. People v. Mooring, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017

36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API