Silver

People v. Silver

Caution
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 494·230 Cal. App. 3d 389·281 Cal. Rptr. 354·91 Daily Journal DAR 5993·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3801
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 21, 1991B045046California2,656 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Health and Safety Code section 11401 defines a controlled substance analog as having a chemical structure “substantially similar” to a controlled substance, or having an effect on the central nervous system “substantially similar” to a controlled substance.

Here we hold that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague.

Arthur Gary Silver was convicted after a jury trial of possession for sale and sale of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), an analog of methamphetamine, a controlled substance. (§§ 11378, 11379, 11401.) We affirm.

The Experts

At trial, Margaret Barber, who supervised chemical analysis for the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department Crime Laboratory, testified that in her opinion MDMA is substantially similar to methamphetamine, a controlled substance. When asked on cross-examination what “substantially similar” meant to her, she replied, “Chemically the structures are very similar.” She also testified that “substantially similar” has no scientific meaning, but that “analog” had the scientifically accepted meaning of being “[sjimilar to another substance.”

Jay Williams, a forensic toxicologist, testified for the defense. Williams stated that MDMA and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.