SCOTUS Unclear on How Knowledge Can Be Shown in Bath Salts Case

The Supreme Court indicated that the state needed to show that the defendant knew the substances were illegal, but did not explain how.

 

McFadden v. United States, 2015 BL 193525, U.S., No. 14-378

 

 

      The U.S. Supreme Court held that in prosecutions involving substances analagous to controlled substances (i.e. bath salts), the government must prove that the defendant knew that they were dealing with a substance regulated under federal drug laws.

 

      Justice Thomas's majority opinion indicated two ways in which the knowledge requirement can be met: First, by evidence that the defendant knew the substance is controlled under the CSA or CSAEA, regardless of whether they knew the substance's identity; or by evidence that the defendant knew the specific analogue they were distributing, even if theyh did not know it's legal status as a controlled substance analogue.

 

     Though a confusing standard, the Court gave two examples of how the above standards can be met: There could be a defendant "whose role in a larger drug organization is to distribute white powder to customers... may know that the white powder is listed on the schedules even if he does not know precisely what substance is." Or there could be a defendant who "knows he is distributing heroin but does not know that heroin is listen on the schedules" would be found guilty because "ignorance of the law is typically no defense to criminal prosecution."

 

     It is important to note that Section 802(32)(A) defines controlled substance analogues by their "features" including "stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect" when it is "substantially similar to or greater" than effects of a schedule I substance. The Court went on to say that "[a] defendant who possesses a substance with knowledge of those features knows all the facts that make his conduct illegal." The Court indicated that the "feature" that defendants need to be aware of "is the fact that it is 'controlled.'"

 

     The case was remanded to the 4th Circuit to determine if erroneous jury instructions, about the knowledge of the defenant, were a harmless error. This case does not indicate much until that has been determined.