2024 (October Term)
United States v. Downum, 86 M.J. 200 (when the government seeks to prove that an accused's use of a controlled substance was wrongful based solely on scientific evidence, one way by which the government may establish an inference of wrongfulness is by offering expert testimony interpreting the urinalysis tests that prove the accused's use of the controlled substance; the expert testimony proffered by the government must establish multiple facts about the testing, including that the metabolite is not naturally produced by the body or any substance other than the drug in question, that the cutoff level and reported concentration are high enough to reasonably discount the possibility of unknowing ingestion, and that the testing methodology reliably detected the presence and concentration of the drug or metabolite in the sample).
United States v. Navarro Aguirre, 86 M.J. 43 (in this case, appellant's conviction for wrongful use of Ambien was legally insufficient when: (1) he had a valid prescription for Ambien, and (2) the basis for his conviction was a medically-known side effect; the government could point to no direct evidence that appellant engaged in the wrongful use of Ambien and the four reasonable inferences offered by the government to affirm appellant's conviction were not enough to sustain the conviction; these proffered reasonable inferences included that appellant took the sleep medication earlier than he should have to get a full nights rest; that because an Ambien prescription label and a brown paper bag were observed in appellant's car, he must have used the Ambien while in his car rather than at home where he could be prepared to go to sleep; that because appellant was still partially in his duty uniform at the time of the police found him in his car, he must have taken the prescription before getting home and properly preparing for sleep; and that because appellant did not need to fall asleep in the early evening in order to get up in time to work a night shift, this shows that he must have been misusing the Ambien when he took it during that time frame; however, these proffered reasonable inferences were better characterized as understandable, but not compelling, suspicions, speculations, and suppositions; and such considerations that were overly speculative and too attenuated from the evidence in the record, standing alone, were not enough to sustain a conviction even under the very low threshold standard applicable during a legal sufficiency review).