intermountain-legal-logo-white-newintermountain-legal-logo-white-newintermountain-legal-logo-white-newintermountain-legal-logo-white-new
  • Criminal Defense
    • Drug or Alcohol Related
      • DUI Charges
        • Alcohol Restricted Driver
        • Ignition Interlock Restricted Driver
        • Sobriety Tests
          • Field Sobriety Tests FSTS
          • Breath Tests Blood Tests
        • Automobile Homicide
        • DUI Drug Charges
      • Drug Charges
        • Drug Possession
          • Possession of Marijuana
          • Possession of Oxycontin
          • Possession of Paraphernalia
          • Possession of Methamphetamine
          • Cocaine
          • Ecstacy MDMA
      • DUI and Drunk Driving Defense
      • Medical Marijuana
      • Underage Drinking / Minor in Possession of Alcohol
      • Selling Alcohol to a Minor
    • Violent Crimes
      • Resulting in Death
        • Manslaughter
        • Negligent Homicide
        • Murder Homicide
      • Assault
      • Aggravated Assault
      • Robbery
      • Kidnapping
      • Reckless Endangerment
    • Domestic Violence
      • Utah Domestic Violence Laws
        • Threat Violence
        • Violation of a Protective Order
        • Violation of a no Contact Order
        • Interruption of a Communication Device
        • Domestic Violence in the Presence of a Child in Utah
      • Crimes Involving Children
        • Child Abuse
        • Custodial Interference
      • Domestic Violence Assault
      • Domestic Violence Criminal Mischief
      • Domestic Violence Criminal Trespass
    • Sex Crimes
      • Violent Sex Crimes
        • Sexual Assault
        • Sex Abuse
        • Rape
      • Other Sex Crimes
        • Statutory Rape
        • Prostitution
        • Sexual Solicitation
        • Lewdness
        • Voyeurism
    • Criminal Activity Defense
      • Misdemeanor Defense
        • Potential Harm or Harassment
          • Stalking
          • Electronic Communication Harassment
          • Disorderly Conduct
          • Utah Intoxication Attorney
        • Damage to Property
          • Graffiti Vandalism
          • Utah Criminal Mischief Attorney
          • Utah Criminal Trespass Lawyer
        • Serious Traffic Violations
        • Probation Violations
        • Gambling
      • Weapon Crimes
        • Gun & Weapons Charges
        • Possession of a Weapon or Firearm in an Airport
        • Discharge of a Firearm from a Vehicle
      • Conflicts with Police
        • Filing a False Police Report
        • Interference with Arresting Officer
        • False Information to a Police Officer
      • Juvenile Crimes
        • Utah Juvenile Court System
        • Juvenile Felony Charges
        • Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor
    • Theft and Fraud
      • Theft
        • Retail Theft Shoplifting
        • Embezzlement
        • Burglary
        • Robbery
        • Theft of Services
      • Fraud
        • Identity Theft
        • Check Fraud
        • Credit Card Fraud
        • Investor Fraud
      • White Collar Crimes
    • Record Expungements
      • Reduction of Criminal Convictions
      • Expungement Eligibility
    • Professional License Defense
    • Felony Defense
    • Common Questions
  • Family Law
    • Divorce
      • Contested Divorce
      • Uncontested Divorce
      • Divorce Decree Modification
      • Post Divorce Enforcement
    • Custody
      • Custody & Paternity
      • Custody Modification
    • Child Support Modification
    • Alimony & Spousal Support
    • Visitation & Parent Time
    • Mediation
    • Protective Orders
      • Defending A Protective Order
    • Other Practice Areas
      • Domestic Violence
      • Grandparent Visitation
      • Guardianship
      • Adoption
    • Common Questions
  • Appeals
  • Our Winning Strategy
    • Recent Case Victories
    • Testimonials
    • Accolades
  • Our Attorneys
    • Steve K Burton
    • Justin S Pratt
    • Staci Visser
    • Matthew Bell
    • Mark LaRocco
  • About
    • Find Us on the Web
  • Contact
  • (801) 970-2800
State of Utah v Brenda Christine White
April 22, 2020
State of Utah v Dustin Dewitt
April 22, 2020
April 22, 2020
Categories
  • Criminal Defense Past Cases
Tags

State Of Utah V. Chance L. Robinson

2011 UT 30
Filed June 10, 2011

Mr. Robinson was stopped by police on suspicion of driving without insurance. He subsequently failed a sobriety test and was charged with driving under the influence. A urinalysis came back positive for cocaine and benzodiazepine, his blood test came back positive for methamphetamine, and Mr. Robinsons admitted to using heroin. After the results of the blood test came back, the State added a charge of possession or use of methamphetamine. Mr. Robinson filed a motion to quash the bindover on his methamphetamine charge. The trial court denied the motion and Mr. Robinson appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.

The Utah controlled substance act makes it illegal for a person to “knowingly and intentionally” have “any measureable amount of a controlled substance in [his or her] body.” Mr. Robinson argued that this provision is unconstitutional under both the Utah and United States Constitutions.

Utah Constitutional Issues

Mr. Robinson argued that the Utah measurable amount provision violates the due process clause of the Utah Constitution because it would apply to a person who unintentionally or involuntarily had a controlled substance present in his or her body. The Utah Supreme Court held that this argument was erroneous because the measurable amount provision applies only to a person who “knowingly or intentionally” has “any measurable amount of a controlled substance in [his or her] body.” Thus, there is no criminal liability for unintentional or involuntary noncompliance. Even so, Mr. Robinson argued that his due process rights were violated because the State had not presented evidence that he had knowingly and voluntarily ingested the methamphetamine. Again, Mr. Robinson’s argument failed because he had pled guilty to knowingly and intentionally possessing or using methamphetamine, and thereby relieved the State of the burden of proving that he had done so. Finally, Mr. Robinson argued that his due process rights were violated because he had no control over how quickly his body would metabolize the methamphetamine, and he may have initially ingested the methamphetamine in a jurisdiction with lesser penalties. This argument failed because the Supreme Court recognized that while Mr. Robinson may not have been able to control the speed of his metabolic processes, he could always control whether he was in the state of Utah, as well as whether he chose to take methamphetamine in the first place.

Mr. Robinson also argued that Utah’s measurable amount provision violates the uniform operation of laws provisions of the Utah Constitution. The Utah Supreme Court held that it does not because: First, the provision creates a classification of persons based on whether they use illegal drugs in Utah. All persons within that class are treated equally regardless of the speed at which their body metabolizes drugs because the crime being punished is the act of using or being under the influence of the drug, not the amount of the drug present in the person’s system. Second, Mr. Robinson was correct that the statute provides for disparate treatment of the persons within the class because it creates different criminal penalties dependent on the type of illegal substance that is used. This disparate treatment is permissible, however, because the legislature had legitimate reasons for choosing to punish the use of methamphetamine, heroine, and cocaine more severely than the use of marijuana. Third, there is a reasonable relationship between the classification and the legislative purpose because the State has a legitimate interest in preventing people from using or being under the influence of illegal drugs in Utah.

United States Constitutional Issues

Mr. Robinson argued that the Utah measureable amount provision violates United States Constitutional principles as explained by the United States Supreme Court in Robinson v. California. Robinson held that a California statute which made it a criminal offense to “be under the influence of, or be addicted to the use of narcotics” was unconstitutional because the “addicted to” portion of the law punished a “’status’ . . . for which the offender may be prosecuted at any time.” The US Supreme Court found that addiction is an illness, and to punish a person for that illness would be a cruel and unusual punishment which would violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Mr. Robinsons argued that having a measurable amount of a narcotic in one’s body is likewise a “status” which cannot constitutionally be punished. The Utah Supreme Court disagreed and held that the Utah measurable amount provision punishes the act of voluntarily using a controlled substance rather than punishing a “status” which is beyond the defendant’s ability to control.

Share
0

Related posts

April 22, 2020

State of Utah v David S Nielsen


Read more
April 22, 2020

State of Utah v David E Epling


Read more
April 22, 2020

State of Utah v Chanzy Walker


Read more

INTERMOUNTAIN LEGAL

Salt Lake City Office:

2159 S 700 E, Ste 240
Salt Lake City, UT 84106

Phone: 801-970-2800

Fax: 801-951-4901


Murray Office:

491 W 5300 S #117
Murray, UT 84123

Phone: 801-970-2800

Quicklinks:

Criminal Defense & DUI

Family Law & Divorce

Appeals

Personal Injury

Our Winning Strategy

Our Attorneys

Blog

© 2021 Intermountain Legal P.C. All Rights Reserved. Built by Incline Marketing