Brief Fact Summary.
Defendant, Geoffrey Honneus, was convicted of crimes arising from the purchase and importation of large quantities of a substances alleged to be marijuana. Defendant claims that the Government did not prove that he was guilty of dealing with â€œCannabis sativa L,â€ as required by the regulation.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
The regulation must be interpreted with the knowledge and perception that Congress had at the time of the regulation enactment.
Defendant alleged that the Government did not prove that he was guilty of dealing with Cannabis sativa L.Â Further, Defendant introduced Dr. Richard Schultes testimony in which Dr. Schultes stated that genus Cannabis only derived from one plant. Â A generation later, Lamarck named a Cannabis specimen from India â€œindica.â€ Â Likewise, in the 1920’s Russian botanist published a study naming a third variant in the genus Cannabis named â€œruderalis.â€ Â Nevertheless, Dr. Schultes the â€œusually accepted view,â€ ignored the other two specimen findings, and claimed there was only one species of Cannabis. Â Now, Dr. Schultes agrees with the previous studies and believes Cannabis is composed of three species. Moreover, the district court held that Congress meant to include all specimens of marihuana producing Cannabis when using the term â€œCannabis sativa L.â€
Whether Congress intended to include all marijuana producing Cannabis when it used the term â€œCannabis sativa L.â€
Yes, Congress intended the term â€œCannabis sativa Lâ€ to embrace all marihuana producing Cannabis because the other named sorts were not considered as a separate Cannabis species at the time of regulation’s enactment.
To say that prejudice can be established only by showing that the cross-examination, if pursued, would necessarily have brought out facts tending to discredit the testimony in chief, is to deny a substantial right and withdraw one of the safeguards essential to a fair trial.View Full Point of Law
Although there is evidence of confusing terminology, Congress did not intend to exclude from the regulation any type of plant that produces hallucinogenic material known as marihuana. Â Defendant claims that solely the sativa specimen was selected because sativa was the most commonly grown specimen in America. Â However, the court rejected Defendant’s argument because Congress abided by Dr. Schultes’ view, â€œthe usually accepted one,â€ at the time of the regulations enactment, which embraces all specimens of Cannabis as â€œCannabis sativa L.â€