Today, the court of appeals reversed a defendant’s drug convictions because the indictments identified the controlled substances in question using terms that are widely used to describe the drugs, but that are neither the chemical names listed in the controlled substance schedules nor – according to the court – “trade names” for the drugs. Because more and more drug cases involve pharmaceuticals that have many names, it is worth reviewing the case. The case is State v. Sullivan. It arose when police used an informant to buy steroids from the defendant. Trial court proceedings. The defendant was charged with, and convicted of, multiple drug crimes, including selling, delivering, or possessing with the intent to sell or deliver, “Uni-Oxidrol,” “Uni-Oxidrol 50,” and “Sustanon.” Court of appeals ruling. The court of appeals ruled that the indictments concerning these substances were fatally defective, citing a line of cases requiring drug indictments to “list a controlled substance by its chemical name as it appears in [Chapter 90].” State v. LePage, 204 N.C. App. 37 (2010). Specifically, the court stated, “neither Uni-Oxidrol, Oxidrol 50, nor Sustanon are substances that are included in Schedule III of the North Carolina Controlled Substances Act.” What are Uni-Oxidrol and Sustanon? As the court noted, there is no reference in Schedule III to “Uni-Oxidrol” or “Sustanon.” So I spent a few minutes on the internet investigating what these substances are. “Oxidrol,” also spelled “oxydrol,” is a name commonly used to describe oxymetholone. The name seems to be used by both those [...]
Faculty Coordinators
