Conviction of Possession of Khat Does Not Require Proof that Defendant Knew that Khat Contained Cathinone.

State v. Ali, Minn.Ct.App., 12/15/2009.  A deputy sheriff found dried khat in a storage locker that Mr. Ali rented.  Khat contains, among other things, cathinone, which is a stimulant.  One chemist dissolved some of the Khat with acid and then detected cathinone by analyzing the stuff that she dissolved in the acid with a gas chromatograph mass spectrometer.  Another chemist said that she had never been able to detect cathinone with a gas chromatograph mass spectrometer.

Mr. Ali said that the state didn’t prove that he knew that his khat contained cathinone, which is a schedule I controlled substance.  The appellate court joins most states and the federal courts in concluding that a defendant need not be aware of the precise chemical name of the ingredient that makes it a controlled substance; proof that a defendant knew that the stuff contained an illegal drug suffices.

Mr. Ali complained about the method by which the first chemist detected cathinone, but the complaint did not include a request for a Frye/Mack, hearing.  The appellate court declined to find any error.  The appellate court also declined to hold that the drug statute was unconstitutionally vague because the statute lists cathinone but not khat.