In Re Waylon M.

Following a true finding he possessed concentrated cannabis (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a)), Waylon M. was granted probation. He appeals contending there was insufficient evidence to support the true finding.

Waylon was arrested on January 20, 1980. While being booked he removed several items from his pocket the arresting officer later testified “resembled hashish.” Upon being questioned by the police following his arrest, Waylon said the items were indeed hash which he had bought earlier that day, paying $100 for 10 grams. He told the officers he and his friends had already smoked one gram. Although a chemical analysis of the substance had been run, no evidence as to the results was introduced at trial. The officer who testified the items “resembled hash” had not been qualified as an expert in spotting narcotics nor did he testify to his background or knowledge regarding drugs.

The identification of narcotics as such requires the opinion of an expert. (See People v. McLean (1961) 56 Cal.2d 660, 663-664 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 347 , 365 P.2d 403 ].) Identification by the user is permitted only where there is evidence showing the user knows the nature of the drugs due to…