As used in the Controlled Substances Act [30-31-1 NMSA 1978]:
A. “administer” means the direct application of a controlled substance by any means to the body of a patient or research subject by a practitioner or the practitioner’s agent;
B. “agent” includes an authorized person who acts on behalf of a manufacturer, distributor or dispenser. It does not include a common or contract carrier, public warehouseperson or employee of the carrier or warehouseperson;
C. “board” means the board of pharmacy;
D. “bureau” means the narcotic and dangerous drug section of the criminal division of the United States department of justice, or its successor agency;
E. “controlled substance” means a drug or substance listed in Schedules I through V [30-31-6 through 31-30-10 NMSA 1978] of the Controlled Substances Act or rules adopted thereto;
F. “counterfeit substance” means a controlled substance that bears the unauthorized trademark, trade name, imprint, number, device or other identifying mark or likeness of a manufacturer, distributor or dispenser other than the person who in fact manufactured, distributed or dispensed the controlled substance;
G. “deliver” means the actual, constructive or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance or controlled substance analog, whether or not there is an agency relationship;
H. “dispense” means to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the administering, prescribing, packaging, labeling or compounding necessary to prepare the controlled substance for that delivery;
I. “dispenser” means a practitioner who dispenses and includes hospitals, pharmacies and clinics where controlled substances are dispensed;
J. “distribute” means to deliver other than by administering or dispensing a controlled substance or controlled substance analog;
K. “drug” or “substance” means substances recognized as drugs in the official United States pharmacopoeia, official homeopathic pharmacopoeia of the United States or official national formulary or any respective supplement to those publications. It does not include devices or their components, parts or accessories;
L. “hashish” means the resin extracted from any part of marijuana, whether growing or not, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such resins;
M. “manufacture” means the production, preparation, compounding, conversion or processing of a controlled substance or controlled substance analog by extraction from substances of natural origin or independently by means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis and includes any packaging or repackaging of the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container, except that this term does not include the preparation or compounding of a controlled substance:
(1) by a practitioner as an incident to administering or dispensing a controlled substance in the course of the practitioner’s professional practice; or
(2) by a practitioner, or by the practitioner’s agent under the practitioner’s supervision, for the purpose of or as an incident to research, teaching or chemical analysis and not for sale;
N. “marijuana” means all parts of the plant cannabis, including any and all varieties, species and subspecies of the genus Cannabis, whether growing or not, the seeds thereof and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the plant or its seeds. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, hashish, tetrahydrocannabinols extracted or isolated from marijuana, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks, fiber, oil or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant that is incapable of germination;
O. “narcotic drug” means any of the following, whether produced directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of vegetable origin or independently by means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis:
(1) opium and opiate and any salt, compound, derivative or preparation of opium or opiate;
(2) any salt, compound, isomer, derivative or preparation that is a chemical equivalent of any of the substances referred to in Paragraph (1) of this subsection, except the isoquinoline alkaloids of opium;
(3) opium poppy and poppy straw, including all parts of the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L. except its seeds; or
(4) coca leaves and any salt, compound, derivative or preparation of coca leaves, any salt, compound, isomer, derivative or preparation that is a chemical equivalent of any of these substances except decocainized coca leaves or extractions of coca leaves that do not contain cocaine or ecgonine;
P. “opiate” means any substance having an addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining liability similar to morphine or being capable of conversion into a drug having addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining liability. “Opiate” does not include, unless specifically designated as controlled under Section 30-31-5 NMSA 1978, the dextrorotatory isomer of 3-methoxy-n-methylmorphinan and its salts, dextromethorphan. “Opiate” does include its racemic and levorotatory forms;
Q. “person” means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, institution, political subdivision, government agency or other legal entity;
R. “practitioner” means a physician, certified advanced practice chiropractic physician, doctor of oriental medicine, dentist, physician assistant, certified nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist, certified nurse-midwife, prescribing psychologist, veterinarian, euthanasia technician, pharmacist, pharmacist clinician or other person licensed or certified to prescribe and administer drugs that are subject to the Controlled Substances Act [30-31-1 NMSA 1978];
S. “prescription” means an order given individually for the person for whom is prescribed a controlled substance, either directly from a licensed practitioner or the practitioner’s agent to the pharmacist, including by means of electronic transmission, or indirectly by means of a written order signed by the prescriber, bearing the name and address of the prescriber, the prescriber’s license classification, the name and address of the patient, the name and quantity of the drug prescribed, directions for use and the date of issue and in accordance with the Controlled Substances Act [30-31-1 NMSA 1978] or rules adopted thereto;
T. “scientific investigator” means a person registered to conduct research with controlled substances in the course of the person’s professional practice or research and includes analytical laboratories;
U. “ultimate user” means a person who lawfully possesses a controlled substance for the person’s own use or for the use of a member of the person’s household or for administering to an animal under the care, custody and control of the person or by a member of the person’s household;
V. “drug paraphernalia” means all equipment, products and materials of any kind that are used, intended for use or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance or controlled substance analog in violation of the Controlled Substances Act [30-31-1 NMSA 1978]. It includes:
(1) kits used, intended for use or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing or harvesting any species of plant that is a controlled substance or controlled substance analog or from which a controlled substance can be derived;
(2) kits used, intended for use or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing or preparing controlled substances or controlled substance analogs;
(3) isomerization devices used, intended for use or designed for use in increasing the potency of any species of plant that is a controlled substance;
(4) testing equipment used, intended for use or designed for use in identifying or in analyzing the strength, effectiveness or purity of controlled substances or controlled substance analogs;
(5) scales or balances used, intended for use or designed for use in weighing or measuring controlled substances or controlled substance analogs;
(6) diluents and adulterants, such as quinine hydrochloride, mannitol, mannite dextrose and lactose, used, intended for use or designed for use in cutting controlled substances or controlled substance analogs;
(7) separation gins and sifters used, intended for use or designed for use in removing twigs and seeds from, or in otherwise cleaning and refining, marijuana;
(8) blenders, bowls, containers, spoons and mixing devices used, intended for use or designed for use in compounding controlled substances or controlled substance analogs;
(9) capsules, balloons, envelopes and other containers used, intended for use or designed for use in packaging small quantities of controlled substances or controlled substance analogs;
(10) containers and other objects used, intended for use or designed for use in storing or concealing controlled substances or controlled substance analogs;
(11) hypodermic syringes, needles and other objects used, intended for use or designed for use in parenterally injecting controlled substances or controlled substance analogs into the human body;
(12) objects used, intended for use or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing marijuana, cocaine, hashish or hashish oil into the human body, such as:
(a) metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic or ceramic pipes, with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads or punctured metal bowls;
(b) water pipes;
(c) carburetion tubes and devices;
(d) smoking and carburetion masks;
(e) roach clips, meaning objects used to hold burning material, such as a marijuana cigarette, that has become too small to hold in the hand;
(f) miniature cocaine spoons and cocaine vials;
(g) chamber pipes;
(h) carburetor pipes;
(i) electric pipes;
(j) air-driven pipes;
(k) chilams;
(l) bongs; or
(m) ice pipes or chillers; and
(13) in determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or other authority should consider, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following:
(a) statements by the owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use;
(b) the proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of the Controlled Substances Act [30-31-1 NMSA 1978] or any other law relating to controlled substances or controlled substance analogs;
(c) the proximity of the object to controlled substances or controlled substance analogs;
(d) the existence of any residue of a controlled substance or controlled substance analog on the object;
(e) instructions, written or oral, provided with the object concerning its use;
(f) descriptive materials accompanying the object that explain or depict its use;
(g) the manner in which the object is displayed for sale; and
(h) expert testimony concerning its use;
W. “controlled substance analog” means a substance other than a controlled substance that has a chemical structure substantially similar to that of a controlled substance in Schedule I, II, III, IV or V [30-31-6, 30-31-7, 30-31-8, 30-31-9 or 30-31-10 NMSA 1978] or that was specifically designed to produce effects substantially similar to that of controlled substances in Schedule I, II, III, IV or V. Examples of chemical classes in which controlled substance analogs are found include the following:
(1) phenethylamines;
(2) N-substituted piperidines;
(3) morphinans;
(4) ecgonines;
(5) quinazolinones;
(6) substituted indoles; and
(7) arylcycloalkylamines.
Specifically excluded from the definition of “controlled substance analog” are those substances that are generally recognized as safe and effective within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act [21 USCS § 301 et seq.] or have been manufactured, distributed or possessed in conformance with the provisions of an approved new drug application or an exemption for investigational use within the meaning of Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act [21 USCS § 355];
X. “human consumption” includes application, injection, inhalation, ingestion or any other manner of introduction;
Y. “drug-free school zone” means a public school, parochial school or private school or property that is used for a public, parochial or private school purpose and the area within one thousand feet of the school property line, but it does not mean any post-secondary school; and
Z. “valid practitioner-patient relationship” means a professional relationship, as defined by the practitioner’s licensing board, between the practitioner and the patient.
HISTORY:
1953 54-11-2, enacted by Laws 1972, ch. 84, § 2; 1979, ch. 2, § 1; 1981, ch. 31, § 1; 1987, ch. 68, § 1; 1989, ch. 177, § 19; 1990, ch. 19, § 2; 1997, ch. 244, § 2; 1997, ch. 253, § 3; 2000, ch. 53, § 1; 2001, ch. 50, § 2; 2002, ch. 100, § 2; 2005, ch. 152, § 9; 2006, ch. 17, § 1; 2008, ch. 44, § 5; 2009, ch. 102, § 2.
Amendment Notes.
The 2005 amendment, effective June 17, 2005, in Paragraph R, deleted “physician assistant” preceding “prescribing psychologist”; in Paragraph S, substituted “from a licensed practitioner or the practitioner’s agent to the pharmacist, including by means of electronic transmission” for “from the prescriber to the pharmacist” and added the language beginning “bearing the name and address” and ending “date of issue and”; and added Paragraph Z.
The 2006 amendment, effective July 1, 2006, rewrote Subsection Y which formerly read “ ‘drug-free school zone’ means a public school or property that is used for public school purposes and the area within one thousand feet of the school property line, but it does not mean any post-secondary school”.
The 2008 amendment, effective May 14, 2008, in Subsection B, twice substituted “warehouseperson” for “warehouseman”; and in Subsection R, inserted “certified advanced practice chiropractic physician”.
The 2009 amendment, effective June 19, 2009, added “euthanasia technician” in (R).
Notes to Decisions
Generally.
Where defendant possessed only mature stalks of some form of cannabis, he was not in violation of former 54-7-13, 1953 Comp. under which he was charged; the court remanded the case for defendant to be discharged. State v. Benavidez, 1962-NMSC-137, 71 N.M. 19, 375 P.2d 333, 1962 N.M. LEXIS 1477 (N.M. 1962).
Cannabis.
Marijuana and cannabis were identical; thus, proof that defendant possessed marijuana also established that defendant possessed cannabis, as prohibited former 54-7-2(14), 1953 Comp. State v. Romero, 1964-NMSC-245, 74 N.M. 642, 397 P.2d 26, 1964 N.M. LEXIS 2316 (N.M. 1964).
Cocaine.
Even without the incorrect testimony of a State’s chemist that both l-cocaine and d-cocaine came from the coca leaf, the jury could reasonably infer that the substance defendant was charged with trafficking in was cocaine under former 54-11-2(P), 1953 Comp. (now 30-31-2 NMSA 1978) of the Controlled Substances Act. State v. Chouinard, 1981-NMSC-096, 96 N.M. 658, 634 P.2d 680, 1981 N.M. LEXIS 2391 (N.M. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 930, 102 S. Ct. 1980, 72 L. Ed. 2d 447, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 1756 (U.S. 1982).
Construction with other law.
Defendant’s conviction for possession of marijuana based on the presence of seeds behind the back seat of his car was reversed, where the evidence showed that defendant was a “manufacturer” or grower of marijuana under former 54-7-2F, 1953 Comp. and therefore could not be convicted for possession under former 54-7-13, 1953 Comp. State v. Gonzales, 1967-NMCA-030, 78 N.M. 591, 435 P.2d 210, 1967 N.M. App. LEXIS 172 (N.M. Ct. App. 1967).
Former 57-5-14, 1953 Comp. and former 54-7-14, 1953 Comp. both prohibited traffic in marijuana and had to be construed in pari materia, and the more general statute, former 54-7-14, 1953 Comp., which had more recently been amended, was intended to control. State v. Chavez, 77 N.M. 79, 419 P.2d 456, 1966 N.M. LEXIS 2770 (N.M. 1966).
Defenses.
Because the legislature has not included a personal use exception in New Mexico’s definition of manufacture, unlike North Carolina, there is no such exception. A trial court did not err by refusing to grant defendant’s request for a jury instruction on the personal use exception in a case involving trafficking methamphetamine by manufacturing. State v. Marshall, 2004-NMCA-104, 136 N.M. 240, 96 P.3d 801, 2004 N.M. App. LEXIS 84 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004).
Requested instruction defining agency was properly refused in connection with defendant’s trial on two counts of trafficking heroin and one count of distribution of marijuana in violation of former 54-11-22A(1), 1953 Comp. (now 30-31-22 NMSA 1978) because agency was not a defense to a distribution charge under former 54-11-2G or 54-11-2J, 1953 Comp. (now 30-31-2 NMSA 1978). State v. Bustamante, 1978-NMCA-062, 91 N.M. 772, 581 P.2d 460, 1978 N.M. App. LEXIS 576 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978).
Deliver.
Distribution is defined in terms of “deliver” and “deliver” means the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance; “transfer” means making over the possession or control, pursuant to former 54-11-2, 1953 Comp. (now 30-31-2 NMSA 1978). State v. Medina, 1975-NMCA-033, 87 N.M. 394, 534 P.2d 486, 1975 N.M. App. LEXIS 635 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975), abrogated as stated in State v. Morales, No. 29,311, 2010 N.M. App. Unpub. LEXIS 462 (N.M. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2010).
Delivery.
Delivery is defined as, the actual, constructive or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance, former 54-11-2G, 1953 Comp. (now 30-31-2 NMSA 1978); no element of remuneration was required, as the use of the term “sale” in the jury instruction tended to imply. State v. Montoya, 1974-NMCA-025, 86 N.M. 155, 520 P.2d 1100, 1974 N.M. App. LEXIS 637 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974).
Distribute.
Defendant’s distribution of the samples of heroin and his subsequent distribution of larger quantities of the same drugs constituted separate transactions under 30-31-20 NMSA 1978 as a matter of law. State v. Borja-Guzman, 1996-NMCA-025, 121 N.M. 401, 912 P.2d 277, 1996 N.M. App. LEXIS 5 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 121 N.M. 375, 911 P.2d 883, 1996 N.M. LEXIS 67 (N.M. 1996).
“Distribute” is defined under the Controlled Substances Act, 30-31-2J NMSA 1978, as deliver. State v. Borja-Guzman, 1996-NMCA-025, 121 N.M. 401, 912 P.2d 277, 1996 N.M. App. LEXIS 5 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 121 N.M. 375, 911 P.2d 883, 1996 N.M. LEXIS 67 (N.M. 1996).
In view of the definition of “distribute” in former 54-11-2, 1953 Comp. (now 30-31-2 NMSA 1978), a defendant’s alleged actions in placing a controlled substance in the mail would constitute a “distribution” of the substance, in alleged violation of former 54-11-21, 1953 Comp. (now 30-31-21 NMSA 1978). State v. McHorse, 1973-NMCA-144, 85 N.M. 753, 517 P.2d 75, 1973 N.M. App. LEXIS 795 (N.M. Ct. App. 1973).
Double jeopardy.
Marijuana is not a “narcotic drug” within the meaning of former 54-11-2, 1953 Comp. (now 30-31-2 NMSA 1978); therefore, conviction for distribution of marijuana under former 54-11-22, 1953 Comp. (now 30-31-22 NMSA 1978) did not violate defendant’s double jeopardy protections where he was originally charged with intentionally trafficking in marijuana under former 54-11-20, 1953 Comp. (now 30-31-20 NMSA 1978) requiring trafficking in a “narcotic drug,” and the charge was dismissed for failure to prove a statutory violation. State v. Mabrey, 1975-NMCA-098, 88 N.M. 227, 539 P.2d 617, 1975 N.M. App. LEXIS 698 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975).
Drug paraphernalia.
Defendant convicted of attempt to commit trafficking by manufacturing after she was arrested for shoplifting eight boxes of nonprescription medications containing ephedrine, and admitted that she was aware that the medications were to be used to manufacture methamphetamine, was incorrect in her argument on appeal that she should have been convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia instead, because drug precursors such as ephedrine are not considered to be drug paraphernalia. State v. McWhorter, 2005-NMCA-133, 138 N.M. 580, 124 P.3d 215, 2005 N.M. App. LEXIS 166 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 138 N.M. 586, 124 P.3d 564, 2005 N.M. LEXIS 544 (N.M. 2005).
Evidence.
Evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of accessory to attempt to manufacture methamphetamine as it showed or gave rise to reasonable inferences that defendant took steps and overtly acted in furtherance of manufacturing methamphetamine. The evidence was that: (1) defendant purchased 35 boxes of matches from several different stores, one right after the other; (2) the matchboxes contained red phosphorous, a key ingredient in manufacturing methamphetamine; (3) defendant bought the boxes for her sister and turned them all over to her sister; (4) defendant knew that the matchboxes were scraped for red phosphorous and she knew the substance was used in manufacturing methamphetamine; (5) defendant knew that the matchboxes were going to be used to manufacture methamphetamine; and (6) together with her sister she purchased or financed the purchase of other products that were ingredients commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine, including fuel and distilled water. State v. Kent, 2006-NMCA-134, 140 N.M. 606, 145 P.3d 86, 2006 N.M. App. LEXIS 129 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 140 N.M. 674, 146 P.3d 809, 2006 N.M. LEXIS 521 (N.M. 2006).
—Insufficient.
Where border patrol agents observed defendant driving a sports car in tandem with a sedan in which police found a large quantity of marijuana, the State established defendant’s ownership of the vehicle through the testimony of a narcotics agent who saw registration documents; however, the agent’s testimony violated the best evidence rule under Rule 11-1004 NMRA, because the State did not offer the registration documents at trial; therefore, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed defendant’s conviction for possession with intent to distribute over 100 pounds marijuana and conspiracy to commit possession with intent to distribute over 100 pounds of marijuana under 30-28-2A NMSA 1978; the tandem-vehicle evidence alone was insufficient to support defendant’s convictions. State v. Lopez, 2009-NMCA-044, 146 N.M. 98, 206 P.3d 1003, 2009 N.M. App. LEXIS 15 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009).
Defendant was convicted of trafficking marijuana upon insufficient evidence by manufacture in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, 30-31-2 NMSA 1978 because the plain meaning of “manufacture” did not include simply growing marijuana. State v. Shaulis-Powell, 1999-NMCA-090, 127 N.M. 667, 986 P.2d 463, 1999 N.M. App. LEXIS 60 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 127 N.M. 391, 981 P.2d 1209, 1999 N.M. LEXIS 182 (N.M. 1999), cert. denied, 127 N.M. 391, 981 P.2d 1209, 1999 N.M. LEXIS 201 (N.M. 1999).
—Prosecution.
Pursuant to the authority of former Rule 5-27(a)(5) NMRA (now Rule 5-501 NMRA), a trial court was not found to have erred when it refused to require the prosecution to produce a report which was not within the possession, custody, or control of the prosecution in connection with defendant’s trial on two counts of trafficking heroin and one count of distribution of marijuana in violation of former 54-11-22A(1), 1953 Comp. (now 30-31-22 NMSA 1978). State v. Bustamante, 1978-NMCA-062, 91 N.M. 772, 581 P.2d 460, 1978 N.M. App. LEXIS 576 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978).
—Sufficient.
Evidence was more than sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine, where, in addition to obtaining and possessing over 5,000 mostly unpackaged pseudoephedrine pills, together with iodine, defendant’s overt acts included renting a car to travel to obtain inexpensive iodine, renting a motel room where unpackaged pseudoephedrine was stored, and admittedly smoking methamphetamine in a room containing scales and acetone, materials necessary to manufacture methamphetamine. State v. Brenn, 2005-NMCA-121, 138 N.M. 451, 121 P.3d 1050, 2005 N.M. App. LEXIS 118 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 138 N.M. 494, 122 P.3d 1263, 2005 N.M. LEXIS 468 (N.M. 2005).
Fact issue.
Trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for a directed verdict because heroin was a narcotic drug as a matter of law under former 54-11-2(P), 1953 Comp. (now 30-31-2 NMSA 1978) and it was not a fact issue for the jury to decide. State v. Romero, 1974-NMCA-015, 86 N.M. 99, 519 P.2d 1180, 1974 N.M. App. LEXIS 629 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974).
Instructions.
Because specific intent was an element of the crime of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance, a violation of former 54-11-22A, 1953 Comp. (now 30-31-2 NMSA 1978), a trial court’s instructions to the jury were proper where they instructed on all the essential elements of the crime. State v. Tucker, 1974-NMCA-049, 86 N.M. 553, 525 P.2d 913, 1974 N.M. App. LEXIS 691 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 86 N.M. 528, 525 P.2d 888, 1974 N.M. LEXIS 1437 (N.M. 1974).
Possession.
Although a State’s chemist incorrectly testified that both l-cocaine and d-cocaine came from the coca leaf, and he was contradicted, though not actively impeached, by another State’s witness, the trial court’s failure to strike the first chemist’s testimony was not ground for reversal of defendant’s conviction for possession of a narcotic drug within the meaning of former 54-11-2(P), 1953 Comp. (now 30-31-2 NMSA 1978) of the Controlled Substances Act. State v. Chouinard, 1981-NMSC-096, 96 N.M. 658, 634 P.2d 680, 1981 N.M. LEXIS 2391 (N.M. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 930, 102 S. Ct. 1980, 72 L. Ed. 2d 447, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 1756 (U.S. 1982).
Requirements.
Marijuana, cannibis indica, and cannibis sativa L. are all identical as a matter of law; thus, in a prosecution for possession of cannibis indica, the prosecution was not required to prove that the substance in the defendant’s possession, which was admittedly marijuana, was from other than the mature stalk. State v. Everidge, 77 N.M. 505, 424 P.2d 787, 1967 N.M. LEXIS 2648 (N.M.), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 976, 87 S. Ct. 1171, 18 L. Ed. 2d 136, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2013 (U.S. 1967).
Specific terms.
Conviction for manufacturing psilocybin mushrooms was reversed because there was no evidence that defendant engaged in extraction from substances of natural origin or chemical synthesis as defined by this rule; the state’s own expert testified that the drug was naturally produced in the mushrooms at the mycelium knot stage. State v. Pratt, 2005-NMCA-099, 138 N.M. 161, 117 P.3d 967, 2005 N.M. App. LEXIS 92 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 138 N.M. 328, 119 P.3d 1265, 2005 N.M. LEXIS 363 (N.M. 2005).
—Narcotic drug.
Defendant’s conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell was upheld because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the substance was a “narcotic drug” as the term was used in former 54-7-14, 1953 Comp. State v. Tapia, 77 N.M. 168, 420 P.2d 436, 1966 N.M. LEXIS 2798 (N.M. 1966).
Weighing.
Inherent within former 54-11-2(O), 1953 Comp. (now 30-31-2 NMSA 1978), when referring to the plant marijuana “whether growing or not” is implicit a substantially contemporaneous weighing of the plant, whether growing or not, after the seizure. State v. Olive, 1973-NMCA-131, 85 N.M. 664, 515 P.2d 668, 1973 N.M. App. LEXIS 782 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 85 N.M. 639, 515 P.2d 643, 1973 N.M. LEXIS 1359 (N.M. 1973).
Research References and Practice Aids
Cross references.
Trafficking controlled substances; violation, 30-31-20 NMSA 1978.
Forfeitures; property subject, 30-31-34 NMSA 1978.
Definitions, 30-31A-2 NMSA 1978.
Definitions, 66-1-4.3 NMSA 1978.