by Alex KornfeldWhether The Drugs Are “CUT” Doesn’t Matter in Trafficking of Cocaine Case And That’s The Bottom Line Because The Supreme Court Said So (until it says something differently)
Whether The Drugs Are “CUT” Doesn’t Matter in Trafficking of Cocaine Case And That’s The Bottom Line Because The Supreme Court Said So (until it says something differently)
If charged with trafficking of cocaine or methamphetamine arguing that the net weight of the cocaine is less than the statutory amount is a losing argument. In State v. Kerr, 383 S.E.2d, 299 S.C. 108 (S.C.,1989), Kerr was convicted of trafficking cocaine 100 grams or more. The gross weight of the cocaine Kerr possessed was over 100 grams but only 74% of that weight was pure cocaine. Kerr argued that the pure weight of his cocaine was only 82.4952 grams which would put him below the 100 gram threshold.
The South Carolina Supreme Court disagreed and cited the statute that stated, “cocaine or any mixtures containing cocaine”. The Court reasoned that drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine are often sold in a diluted state and that when the drug is “cut” the substance is more harmful to society as a whole because the dilution increases the potential number of people that will come in contact with the drugs. This, the Court stated, is exactly what the law is trying to deter.
Does this make sense? What is the majority of the drugs mixture is “cut”? What if there are only trace amount of drugs within a pile of flour? Hopefully reasonable minds would prevail. These lines of questioning bring me to this? In this case, the Supreme Court is like Stone Cold? “Huh”, you say?
Do you remember when Stone Cold stated, “And that’s the bottom line because Stone Cold said so?” Well, until the law is changed the “why” doesn’t matter as much because The Supreme Court said so.
Sources: State v. Kerr, 383 S.E.2d, 299 S.C. 108 (S.C.,1989)
SC Code 44-53-392