State v. Fox
124 Idaho 924, 866 P.2d 181, 1993 Ida. LEXIS 198 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The offense of possession of a controlled substance under Idaho law requires only general intent, meaning knowledge of physical possession of the substance itself, not knowledge that the substance is illegal or a controlled substance. Ignorance of the law is not a defense to such a charge.
Facts:
- Milton Fox ordered and received 100,000 tablets of ephedrine from an out-of-state mail order distributor.
- Ephedrine has a stimulative effect on the central nervous system, is used to treat asthma, and in some states, is a legal over-the-counter drug.
- In Idaho, ephedrine was listed as a Schedule II controlled substance in the Uniform Controlled Substances Act in 1988.
- Compounds containing ephedrine could be sold over-the-counter in Idaho until November 1990, when the Idaho Board of Pharmacy designated ephedrine as a prescription drug.
- Fox asserted that he did not know that ephedrine was illegal in Idaho.
Procedural Posture:
- On January 11, 1991, the State charged Milton Fox in District Court (trial court) with one count of conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance and one count of possession of ephedrine, a controlled substance.
- During the trial on the possession count, the District Court dismissed the conspiracy count for lack of proof at the end of the State’s case.
- During the trial on the possession count, Fox attempted to introduce magazine advertisements for ephedrine from out-of-state suppliers as evidence.
- The District Court sustained the State's objection to these exhibits as cumulative and, after a hearing, ruled they were not relevant because knowledge of illegality was not an element of the offense.
- Fox renewed his argument regarding the exhibits' relevance, citing the State's proposed jury instruction that required proving he had "knowledge of its [ephedrine's] presence and nature as a controlled substance."
- The District Court then ruled it would not give that instruction or a similar defense-proposed instruction, stating they did not accurately reflect the law.
- Fox entered a conditional plea of guilty pursuant to I.C.R. 11(a)(2), preserving his right to appeal the District Court’s rulings.
- Fox appealed the District Court's rulings to the Idaho Supreme Court (highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the offense of possession of a controlled substance under Idaho Code § 37-2732(c) require knowledge that the possessed substance is illegal, or is general intent (knowledge of possessing the substance) sufficient, and is a mistake of law a valid defense?
Opinions:
Majority - McDevitt, Chief Justice
No, the offense of possession of a controlled substance under Idaho Code § 37-2732(c) does not require knowledge that the possessed substance is illegal; general intent, meaning knowledge of possessing the substance, is sufficient. Furthermore, a mistake of law is not a valid defense. The Court found that I.C. § 37-2732(c), the possession statute, does not explicitly set forth any mental state as an element. Citing prior cases like State v. Sterrett, the Court stated that if criminal intent is not an express element of a statutory offense, it is a matter of construction, and the lack of such intent is immaterial. The Court then interpreted I.C. § 18-114, which requires a "union...of act and intent," to mean only the intent to knowingly perform the forbidden act, not the intent to commit a crime, referencing State v. Parish. Thus, only a general intent (knowledge of being in possession of the substance) is required. Fox's argument that he did not know ephedrine was illegal was classified as a mistake of law, not a mistake of fact. The Court affirmed the long-standing principle that ignorance of the law is not a defense, citing Hale v. Morgan and State v. Einhorn, and therefore found the trial court was correct in excluding Fox's exhibits and refusing his proposed jury instructions because evidence regarding his lack of knowledge of illegality was irrelevant.
Dissenting - Bistline, Justice
Justice Bistline reluctantly concedes that, based on the current wording of the statute, the majority's affirmation of the trial court's decision is procedurally correct. However, he dissents from the result due to significant concerns about the potential for unjust application of I.C. § 37-2732(c) to Idaho citizens. He highlights scenarios where individuals might innocently purchase ephedrine out-of-state for medical reasons, unaware of Idaho's specific designation of ephedrine as a prescription drug, or those ordering from suppliers without explicit legal warnings. Justice Bistline argues that while ignorance of the law is generally not an excuse, a statute that imposes felony penalties for potentially very innocent behavior must be drafted with extreme care. He concludes that I.C. § 37-2732 is too "blunt an instrument" and should, at minimum, provide a defense for citizens who genuinely did not know or could not reasonably have known about the statute's implications.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the mens rea requirement for controlled substance possession in Idaho, establishing that knowledge of the substance's illegal status is not necessary for conviction. It reinforces the general legal principle that ignorance of the law is not a defense, even when the legal status of a substance has recently changed or varies across jurisdictions. The dissent highlights the potential for harsh outcomes and the importance of statutory clarity, particularly when a law criminalizes behavior that might otherwise be innocent or medically justifiable in other contexts. This decision places a substantial burden on individuals to actively ascertain the legal status of substances, potentially impacting those who travel or rely on out-of-state sources for common over-the-counter medications.
