norml22 - Page 8
Page 8
Previous ,
Next ,
Original Image
Return to Index
which provided: _'No person shall operate a motor vehicle on any
highway while knowingly having in his possession or in the motor
vehicle any narcotic drug within the meaning of section 24:18-2
of the Revised Statutes .... t, Section 24_18-2 defined narcotic
drugs as including _coco leaves, opium, marijuana and every
substance not chemically distinguishable from theme" Citing
empirical studies on the effects of marijuana and recent changes
in the state drug statute, the court held that marijuana could
not be classified as a narcotic drug within the meaning of the
motor vehicle statute°
in S_tat_, 500 P.2d 291 (Okla. Ct. Crim. App. 1972) ,
the defendant had been charged with possession of marijuana. At
the close of the evidences the trial judge instructed the jury as
follows:
You are instructed that if you believe from the
evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant did. possessed (sic) a
ruarcQ_/___l__to wit: _rihuaD__ you shall find
the defendant guilty as charged in the
information. If you fail to so find, your verdict
shall be not guilty.
500 P°2d at 296.
Sam argued on appeal that the trial court erred in
instructing the jury that marijuana was a narcotic, and the Court
of Criminal Appeals agreed, citing State ___Ca2D_se _/ipra, and
_eople V, McCab_, _l!D2__, the court concluded that 'emarihuana is
not a narcotic drug° o and the trial court's instructions to
that effect are error. '_ _d., at 297°
The California Court of Appeals, in _eoD/__v_RIL_21, 49
7
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index