State v. Segovia
Idaho Supreme Court
457 P.2d 905 (1969)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Ramiro Garcia and Florentino Segovia (defendants) were arrested for possessing marijuana. A state statute made it illegal to possess a narcotic without a medical prescription. Under state law, marijuana was defined as a narcotic with no legal medicinal purpose. At trial, the prosecution (plaintiff) presented evidence that Garcia and Segovia had possessed marijuana but did not present any evidence establishing that the two men did not have prescriptions for the marijuana. Garcia and Segovia were convicted of illegally possessing a narcotic. On appeal, the two men claimed that (1) not having a prescription was an element of the crime of illegal possession and (2) the prosecution had failed to establish this element. The prosecution argued that having a prescription and satisfying the statute’s exception was a defense that a defendant could raise, not an element of the crime that the prosecution was required to prove.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McFadden, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.