indicating that those found in possession of LSD were similarly situated with regard to two statutes providing different penalties for the same conduct
How later courts described this case
- indicating that those found in possession of LSD were similarly situated with regard to two statutes providing different penalties for the same conduct
- holding when two statutes proscribe same criminal conduct, lesser of two punishments should be imposed
- prosecutor does not have unfettered authority to select the statute having a harsher penalty if two statutes contain identical elements of a crime
- "[Where there is doubt or uncertainty as to which of two punishments is applicable to an offense an accused is entitled to the benefit of the lesser."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
’ELLETT, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. The statutes are too clear for me to see any conflict whatever between them. Title 58, Chapter 33, U.C.A.1953, is known as the Drug Abuse Control Law. It in substance-'provides that initial violations of its provisions amount to an indictable misdemeanor,' and ;it sets forth the punishment therefor -in. Sec. 58-33-4. However, it further provides bySec. 58-33-6(gJ, that if a violation of one of its provisions is also a violation, of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act- (Title 58, Chapter 13a), then the punishment will be under the latter (a- felony) and not under the former (an indictable misdemeanor).
The same legislature which passed the Drug Abuse Control.Act also amended the Uniform Narcotic .Drug Act so as to include a prohibition .against the possession and so forth of LSD-25 1
It, therefore, seems obvious to me that all the world must know and understand what the punishment for'unlawful'possession of-LSD is. I would affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.
. The figure 25 indicates simply the date of discovery of the drug and does not . purport' .to indicate any different form of drug other than LSD.