Minor - Possession with intent to distribute

[Paczkowskit]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Wisconsin.

Hi. I'm 16 years old and am currently in Wisconsin. A few friends and I were smoking that synthetic marijuana (huge mistake). The cops eventually caught us (details are unnecessary) and I told them that the stuff was mine. This is over a month ago, and I've just received a letter saying that I have: Possession with intent to distribute a hazardous substance (felony). I have good grades, have never been in trouble in the law, and have totally changed my ways. I have a meeting with a social worker about the charges.

That meeting - what is the point? Is he/she the one deciding my punishment?
Will I be a felon for the rest of my life if I get charged with that?
What do you think will happen? Am I gonna be okay?

I don't want this to ruin my future for college and a good job.
I shouldn't have even been messing with this stuff.

 

[FlyingRon]

You need a lawyer. As you realize you are guilty of a felony. A social worker may prepare a recommendation for the court, but it is the courts that decide what to do with you.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I have a meeting with a social worker about the charges.

There is no attorney/client privilege with a social worker.

 

[tranquility]

Not only is there not privilege, I believe the Social worker is on the state's team.

Get an attorney. You should have shut up in the beginning. In fact, I suspect you already admitted to the crime. But, you need an attorney to guide you.

 

[Isis1]

and do your parents know?

 

[Paczkowskit]

Yes, we admitted to doing it on the spot. Yes, my parents know. I've been under lockdown since.

 

[xylene]

As you realize you are guilty of a felony.

The state has not proved the intent portion of the law simply by his admitting possession.

His a attorney should argue for, at the least a reduction of the charge to the proper scope, which would be a misdemeanor.

 

[tranquility]

You know what he admitted to? Let's see here, he admitted the stuff THAT EVERYONE WAS SMOKING was his. How did the others get it? Don't you think that was part of the conversation with the police?

 

[FlyingRon]

The state has not proved the intent portion of the law simply by his admitting possession.

He said it was his and he gave it to his friends (they were all smoking).
That's all it takes for distribution. Distribution doesn't have to be sales. Sharing your drugs with your friends counts too.

 

[xylene]

You know what he admitted to? Let's see here, he admitted the stuff THAT EVERYONE WAS SMOKING was his. How did the others get it? Don't you think that was part of the conversation with the police?

I know what he posted.

Only you are making an inference.

 

[tranquility]

Unless we have a confession (Which we might, we don't know all that he told the cops.), how do you think intent is proven but by inference?

 

[xylene]

Unless we have a confession (Which we might, we don't know all that he told the cops.), how do you think intent is proven but by inference?

I think the statute codifies the elements of intent quite clearly.

The poster admitted to possesion of the 'spice' (syn marj)

He was not arrested in the course of a sale or offering for sale.

He was not in possession of it packaged for sale. (unless a smoked bowl or joint now a saleable amount...)

Is every smoker who passed to the right guilty of distribution?

It is an absurd overreach of the statutory intent of the as outlined in the law.

This is why the op needs a lawyer and not a comically stupid lesson in the form of a felony for a fake drug.

 

[FlyingRon]

He was not arrested in the course of a sale or offering for sale.

In WISCONSIN, there's no requirement for sale. The operative term there is delivery. And it is defined by the statute as:

(6) “Deliver” or “delivery”, unless the context otherwise requires, means the actual, constructive or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance or controlled sub- stance analog, whether or not there is any agency relationship.
​

Is every smoker who passed to the right guilty of distribution?

Under Wisconsin law, YES.

 

[tranquility]

I think the statute codifies the elements of intent quite clearly.

I agree. Which element fails?

The poster admitted to possesion of the 'spice' (syn marj)

More than that. "A few friends and I were smoking that synthetic marijuana (huge mistake). The cops eventually caught us (details are unnecessary) and I told them that the stuff was mine." The cops saw caught them smoking and the OP said it was his.

He was not arrested in the course of a sale or offering for sale.

Not really relevant.

He was not in possession of it packaged for sale. (unless a smoked bowl or joint now a saleable amount...)

This is known as indicia of dealing. It is a way the prosecution tries to get the jury to INFER the suspect's intent.

Is every smoker who passed to the right guilty of distribution?

Pretty much.

It is an absurd overreach of the statutory intent of the as outlined in the law.

This is why the op needs a lawyer and not a comically stupid lesson in the form of a felony for a fake drug.

Agreed.