OFFENSES REGARDING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES INTERIM STUDY

UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEMDATA REVIEW Greg Sattizahn

State Court Administrator

1

Drug Related Convictions Data

FY 2009-2019

2

POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

484 550764 787

1104 1115 1134

1406

1673

2144 2104

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

CONVICTIONS

Fiscal Year

3

FY 19- DATA SNAPSHOT

2104 Possession of a Controlled Substance Cases Statewide

1 7 22 2 742

88

1 4 6 6687380

772

44445

671 2 3 4 22 2 12

392

60482

662 1 2 21 4 5 1 18 1 1 4 3 1 1 7 7 4

418

Aur

ora

Bon

Hom

me

Brul

eBu

ffalo

Cha

rles M

ixC

lay

Dav

ison

Dou

glas

Hans

onM

cCoo

kTu

rner

Unio

nYa

nkto

nLin

coln

Min

neha

haBe

adle

Broo

king

sC

lark

Cod

ingt

onD

euel

Gra

ntHa

ndJe

raul

dLa

keM

iner

Moo

dy

Butte

Cor

son

Law

renc

eM

eade

Perk

ins

Brow

nD

ayM

arsh

all

McP

hers

onRo

berts

Spin

kW

alw

orth

Benn

ett

Hugh

esJa

ckso

nJo

nes

Lym

anSt

anl

eySu

llyTo

ddTr

ipp

Cus

ter

Fall R

iver

Penn

ingt

on

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

County

4

INGESTION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

2 7 19 5 0

275

638

825

984 991939

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

CONVICTIONS

5

FY 19- DATA SNAPSHOT

939 Ingestion of a Controlled Substance Cases Statewide

4 3

1625

16

1 1 1 415

2426

43

10

61

2

122

1 3 1 1

18

1

15

1

156

1

353241

6 410

1

101

8

25

5 1

48

4 1 2 2 2 3 3

20

5 9

134Bo

n Ho

mm

eBr

ule

Cha

rles M

ixC

lay

Dav

ison

Hans

onHu

tchi

nson

McC

ook

Turn

erUn

ion

Yank

ton

Linco

lnM

inne

haha

Bead

leBr

ooki

ngs

Cla

rkC

odin

gton

Deu

elG

rant

Jera

uld

King

sbur

yLa

keM

iner

Moo

dy

Sanb

orn

Butte

Cor

son

Hard

ing

Law

renc

eM

eade

Brow

nD

ayEd

mun

dsM

arsh

all

McP

hers

onRo

berts

Spin

kW

alw

orth

Benn

ett

Haak

onHu

ghes

Jack

son

Jone

sLy

man

Mel

lette

Potte

rSt

anl

eyTo

ddTr

ipp

Cus

ter

Fall R

iver

Penn

ingt

on

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

County

6

MANUFACTURE/DISTRIBUTION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

181203

223

264

306272

320 307279 290 293

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

CONVICTIONS

7

FY 19- DATA SNAPSHOT

293 Manufacture/ Distribution of a Controlled Substance Cases Statewide

1 49

13

2 3 613

103

8 11

20

3 3 1 3 17

310 11

4 1

10

1 1 1 2 1

35

10

20

40

60

80

100

120

County

8

“OTHER” CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE CONVICTIONS

30

21

42 4246

35

2934 35

19 21

05

101520253035404550

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

CONVICTIONS “OTHER”- This category includes all other charges related to controlled substances such as misrepresentation to obtained a controlled substance which is the most common; or attempts or conspiracies to obtain controlled substances which are less common.

9

Data Trends

Convictions for possession of a controlled substance have increased every year since 2009 except in 2019 which dropped slightly.

Between 2009 and 2019 convictions for possession of a controlled substance increased 125%.

Convictions for ingestion of a controlled substance only became relevant following the changes in 2014’s Public Safety Improvement Act (otherwise known as SB 70).

From 2014 to 2019 convictions for ingestion of a controlled substance increased 109%.

Convictions for the manufacture and distribution of a controlled substance have remained fairly steady over the last several years.

10

Possession v. Ingestion-Charging Practices

11

Possession v. Ingestion-Charging Practices

The Following Data Set Represents Cases Where Ingestion of a Controlled Substance Was NOT the Highest Charged Offense on a Case BUT the Defendant Ultimately Pled Guilty to Ingestion of a Controlled Substance and the Higher Offense was DISMISSED.

DISCLAIMER: This only represents court data so charging decisions made before the case was filed with the court would be outside of the scope of the UJS data.

12

Cases Where Ingestion of a Controlled Substance Was Not the Highest Charged Offense on a Case But the Defendant Ultimately Pled Guilty to Ingestion of a Controlled Substance and the Higher Offense was Dismissed

61 64

75

93

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FY16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19

Ingestion Guilty Pleas Following Dismissal of Higher Charged Offense

13

FY 19- DATA SNAPSHOT

93 Cases Statewide Where Ingestion of a Controlled Substance Was Not the Highest Charged Offense on a Case But the Defendant Ultimately Pled Guilty to Ingestion of a Controlled Substance and the Higher Offense was Dismissed

1 1

3

1 12

6

2

4

13

1

7

3

11

12

12

1

9

1

13

1

4

1 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

County

14

Dispositions

For those 93 cases statewide during FY 19 the sentences following the guilty plea are depicted as follows:

58

25

10

Sentences for Pled Cases

Probation Pen Other

Probation

Pen

“Other” includes cases where the sentence doesn’t include probation or penitentiary supervision such as a county jail sentence or fine.

15

QUESTIONS

16