BOULTINGHOUSE

People v. BOULTINGHOUSE

Good Law
134 Cal. App. 4th 619·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1849·2005 Daily Journal DAR 13746·36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 244·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10076
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 30, 2005G033611California2,135 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bedsworth, J.

Christopher Michael Boultinghouse was convicted of possessing steroids for personal use and possessing for sale gammabutyrolactone (GBL), which is listed as a controlled substance under California law. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11054, subd. (e)(3).) Because GBL is not listed as a controlled substance under federal law, Boultinghouse claims his GBL conviction violates the supremacy clause of the federal Constitution. He also alleges prosecutorial misconduct, as well as evidentiary and sentencing error. Finding no basis to disturb the judgment, we affirm.

On March 21, 2002, federal agents searched Boultinghouse’s apartment and found 54 bottles of GBL, four types of steroids and $34,500 in cash. Boultinghouse told agent Eric Ball he did not know where or when he got the GBL. He referred to it as “Renewtrient” and “Blue Nitro” and claimed it was a legal substance commonly used by bodybuilders.

At trial, Ball testified GBL was once widely available as a legal body building substance. However, he said it was banned for consumption around 2000 because it is very similar to gamma hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), a federally controlled substance. In fact, he said once GBL is ingested, it…

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.