Since the early eighties, this court has, in equal protection cases, articulated a rational basis test that differs from the federal standard, requiring:
#COKE TERMINOLOGY 8 BALL PRICE CRACK#
It contends that the legislature has a permissible and legitimate interest in regulating the possession and sale of crack cocaine and cocaine powder and that it was reasonable for lawmakers to believe that the three grams of crack ten grams of powder classification would regulate the possession of those drugs by the "street level" dealers at whom the statute was primarily aimed.Įven if we were to agree with the state's argument as to the analysis under the federal test, we strike the statute as unconstitutional under the rational basis test as articulated under Minnesota law. The state argues that the challenged statute passes muster under that test. Review of an equal protection challenge under the federal rational basis test requires (1) a legitimate purpose for the challenged legislation, and (2) that it was reasonable for the lawmakers to believe that use of the challenged classification would promote that purpose. We granted a joint petition for accelerated review filed by both the state and the defendants pursuant to Minn.R.
#COKE TERMINOLOGY 8 BALL PRICE TRIAL#
The trial court granted the defendants' joint motion to dismiss and certified the question of the statute's constitutionality to the court of appeals pursuant to Minn. The trial court then determined that no rational basis supported the distinction between crack-cocaine and cocaine powder and that the law therefore violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection. The trial court concluded that the law has a discriminatory impact on black persons. § 152.023 with more severe consequences than their white counterparts who possess three or more grams of cocaine powder. As a result, a far greater percentage of blacks than whites are sentenced for possession of three or more grams of crack cocaine under Minn.Stat. The trial court found that crack cocaine is used predominantly by blacks and that cocaine powder is used predominantly by whites. 2, jointly moved the trial court to dismiss the charges on the ground that the statute has a discriminatory impact on black persons and violates the equal protection guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. The presumptive sentence for possession of an equal amount of cocaine powder is a stayed 12 months of imprisonment and probation.ĭefendants, five African-American men who were charged with violating Minn.Stat.
Under the sentencing guidelines, the presumptive sentence for possession of three grams of crack cocaine is an executed 48 months imprisonment. Pursuant to these statutes, possession of three grams of crack cocaine carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison while possession of an equal amount of cocaine powder carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. A person who possesses less than 10 grams of cocaine powder is guilty of a fifth degree offense. Under the same statute, a person must possess ten or more grams of cocaine powder to be guilty of the same offense. 2, a person is guilty of a third degree offense if he or she possesses three or more grams of cocaine base. 2(1) (1989), as it is applied, violate the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution, Article 1, Section 2? We are asked, in this pre-trial appeal, to consider the following certified question:ĭoes Minnesota Statute 152.023, Subd.
Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc. Public Defenders, and William McGee, Legal Rights Center, Minneapolis, for respondents.Ītty. County Atty., Minneapolis, for appellant.ĭavid P. Gerard RUSSELL, Dmitry Deshone Armstead, Michael Odell Johnson, Steve Antonio Morrison, and James Alderson, Respondents. STATE of Minnesota, Petitioner, Appellant,
0 kommentar(er)
