In re J.R. CA3

Filed 7/25/14 In re J.R. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re J.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C075039 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JV133901 )

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

J.R., a 14-year-old minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s order sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) petition alleging he possessed oxycodone. The minor claims there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that the pills he possessed were indeed oxycodone, a controlled substance. We agree and reverse the judgment.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Officers responding to a call of shots fired at approximately 2:00 a.m. on August 10, 2013, encountered the minor and two other juveniles standing on a street corner about a block from the subject area. In the course of searching the minor, the officers located a small plastic bag containing white powder, which field tested positive for cocaine (but was later revealed by chemical analysis not to be cocaine), three white pills, and a tan pill (which was not identified as containing any controlled substance). The white pills bore the number “512,” and the minor told the officers they were oxycodone. The minor told the officers he had purchased the “cocaine” that day and had taken the white pills from his mother. The officers confirmed with poison control that the white pills were oxycodone based on their physical description as white pills bearing the numbers “512.” The petition alleged the minor came within the ambit of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) based on two counts of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); count one -- cocaine; count two -- oxycodone). Count one was dismissed before trial for lack of evidence. At trial, an expert in the analysis of controlled substances opined that the pills contained oxycodone. He identified them by their markings without performing any chemical analysis of the pills. He testified this was his standard procedure for identifying pharmaceuticals because of “manpower,” and that the marking “512” corresponded to a particular dosage of pills comprised of oxycodone and acetaminophen and manufactured by Mallinckrodt Pharma. When he had analyzed pills bearing the marking “512” in previous cases, these analyses had demonstrated the presence of oxycodone. On cross- examination, the criminalist admitted it would be possible for clandestine street manufacturers to produce, for example, ecstasy pills from a powder form using a pill press, made with “different types of impressions.”