AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• On August 5, 2018, an officer approached Santiago V.'s (Child) parked car due to an expired registration and observed suspicious behavior. The officer smelled burnt marijuana, saw Child placing a clear plastic bag into his pocket, and upon searching, found a bag containing a green, leafy substance believed to be marijuana. The substance was not tested, and its identity was based solely on the officer's testimony. Child was subsequently adjudicated as delinquent for possession of marijuana (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Child-Appellant: Argued the evidence was insufficient to prove the substance was marijuana or that he knew it was marijuana. Claimed scientific evidence is required to identify the substance (para 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended the officer's testimony about his observations, experience, and the smell of marijuana was sufficient evidence to establish the substance as a controlled substance (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance in Child's possession was marijuana.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove Child knew the substance was marijuana (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed Child’s adjudication for possession of marijuana (para 14).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Kristina Bogardus and concurred by Judges Zachary A. Ives and Jane B. Yohalem, held that the officer's testimony, based on his training and experience, was sufficient to identify the substance as marijuana. The Court referenced precedents stating expert testimony is not required to identify illegal drugs and that lay opinion on marijuana identification is admissible. The circumstances of the case, including the smell of marijuana, Child's behavior, and the officer's observations, supported the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court also addressed Child's argument regarding the necessity of scientific evidence to distinguish between marijuana and synthetic cannabinoids, concluding that the statute and corresponding jury instruction do not require disproof of the alternate charge not pursued by the State. The Court declined to consider arguments without cited authority (paras 6-13).