Are there any cases out there that require that the Lab ID the pills found on suspects? I have cases that are over 6 months old involving pills that can be readily ID'd by looking them up in a manual. Do not care about the weight because the cases are Poss of Prohibited Substance in a Correctional Facility.

My local Pharmacists are very helpful about reporting prescription Frauds and meth makers so I don't want to impose on them by making them experts.

How about some law Shannon that allows law enforcement to rely on these manuals? Sure would cut out the delays and let the labs work on the other substances not so easily Identified.

I've done some looking on Lexis and have been unable to find anything, but would it be possible to get the manual admitted as a learned treatise? Then you could send the manual and the drugs back with the jury and let them do a lay comparison- just like they do with shoe prints, handwriting, and a host of other things. The ID would go to the weight, not the admissibility.

The one difficulty might be getting sufficient testimony to admit the recognition guide without having to call a pharmacist or someone who relies on it in a medical setting...

Manning v. State, 637 SW2d 941:

In ground of error one, the appellant maintains the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation, as the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's finding that the substance seized by the police officers was phenmetrazine.

An examination of the record reveals the following testimony of Officer L. E. Hall was the sole evidence presented by the State to prove the substance seized was phenmetrazine:

"Q. What did you find when you looked inside that foil?

A. I found twenty pink tablets, which I believed was Preludin.

Q. How long have you been a police officer?

A. For approximately four and a half years.

Q. Have you had an occasion to see tablets which you knew to be Preludin, or later found out were Preludin?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. Based on your experience and your observation, did you believe what was in that foil were preludin tablets?

A. Yes, sir, I did." (Emphasis added)


In its brief the State argues that phenmetrazine hydrochloride is marketed in the United States by Boehringer Ingelheim under the tradename "Preludin". The State contends that Boehringer Ingelheim is the only source of such tablets listed in the Physician's Desk Reference, (33rd Ed. 1979). The State further contends the evidence was sufficient to establish that Preludin is in fact phenmetrazine as this fact is readily ascertainable [**3] from such reference books as Physician's Desk Reference from which the trial court can properly take judicial notice of such fact. We do not agree with the State's contention.

Although the State details the appearance of Preludin in its brief, there is no evidence in the record, other than color, showing that the distinctive nature of the tablets seized matched the description of Preludin. We are unable to discern from the record whether the tablets were round, oblong or square. Further, there is no testimony regarding the markings, if any, which appeared on the tablets. An examination of the Physician's Desk Reference reveals numerous pink tablets appearing remarkably similar to Preludin. Without more description than is present in the instant record, the introduction of the tablets, or a chemical analysis, we cannot find the officer was able to identify the pills. We, therefore, find the State failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the substance possessed was phenmetrazine. See Duran v. State, 552 S.W.2d 840 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977) (police officer not qualified to testify a brown powdered substance is heroin).

Gallegos v. State, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 887

As for the remaining substance at issue, the State introduced the sealed packages of medicine containing pseudoephedrine confiscated from Koch's premises. The labeling on the sealed packages indicates each package held medicine containing pseudoephedrine. This labeling served as proof of the contents of the packaging and therefore established the identity of the substance for the jury. See Shaffer v. State, 184 S.W.3d 353, 361 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref'd) (holding evidence was legally and factually sufficient to prove appellant was in possession of pseudoephedrine where the sealed cold medicine packages introduced by the State included labeling indicating its contents contained pseudoephedrine). Because the State was able to establish the identity of the substances for the jury through the evidence it presented at trial, see generally Manning v. State, 637 S.W.2d 941, 943 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (indicating State must present chemical analysis or other evidence to establish the identity of a controlled substance), we must overrule Gallegos's contention.

How would the jury know that the tablet actually contained the prohibited substance, rather than being a "clone" of an actual prohibited substance? How could you prove that BRD without a lab report? I know a pharmacist can ID pills, but unless the pharmacist conducts a chemical analysis, how would he know that the tablet/pill in question was actually composed of the prohibited substance?

These are the questions I would not want to hear in closing argument by the defense.