In re J.R. CA3

DISCUSSION

It was the People’s burden to prove the substance possessed by the defendant was a controlled substance. (CALCRIM No. 2304; see also People v. McChristian (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 891, 896 (McChristian).) “Ordinarily the narcotic character of a substance is proved by a trained expert who has made a chemical analysis thereof.” (People v. Galfund (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 317, 320 (Galfund).) As we will explain, while may well be possible in some cases to prove possession of a controlled substance without chemical analysis, in this case there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s conclusion that defendant possessed oxycodone beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal allegations in a delinquency hearing are subject to the same proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard as applied to criminal court. (In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 368 [25 L.Ed.2d 368, 377-378].) “When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, we apply the familiar substantial evidence rule. We review the whole record in a light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that is credible and of solid value, from which a rational trier…