Summary
The Supreme Court of North Dakota considered whether possession of marijuana with intent to deliver within 1,000 feet of a school qualified for the statutory school-zone offense enhancement. The court held that N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-23.1(1)(a) enhances only offenses involving the manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance, not possession with intent to deliver. It reversed the judgment and remanded for resentencing as a class B felony.
Holdings
- N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-23.1(1)(a) provides an offense enhancement for manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school, but does not enhance a completed possession-with-intent-to-deliver offense when the defendant had not actually distributed the substance.
- The Court will not read possession with intent to deliver into an enhancement provision that expressly identifies manufacture and distribution but omits possession with intent to deliver.
Questions Presented
- Whether N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-23.1(1)(a) enhances a possession-with-intent-to-deliver offense occurring within 1,000 feet of a school.
- Whether the statutory terms requiring that the offense involve the manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance include possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver it.
- Whether the district court judgment should be reversed and Dennis resentenced under the underlying possession-with-intent-to-deliver statute.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (9)
- State v. Laib, 2002 ND 95, ¶ 13, 644 N.W.2d 878(followed)
- Little v. Tracy, 497 N.W.2d 700, 705 (N.D. 1993)(followed)
- City of Bismarck v. DePriest, 2006 ND 158, ¶ 9, 717 N.W.2d 924(followed)
- State v. Beciraj, 2003 ND 173, ¶ 14, 671 N.W.2d 250(followed)
- State v. Rue, 2001 ND 92, ¶ 33, 626 N.W.2d 681(followed)
- United States v. McKenney, 450 F.3d 39, 42-45 (1st Cir. 2006)(distinguished)
- United States v. King, 325 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2003)(discussed)
- United States v. Alexander, 331 F.3d 116, 131 (D.C. Cir. 2003)(discussed)
- United States v. Contreras, 895 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1990)(discussed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…