## Facts

- Fox ordered and received 100,000 ephedrine tablets from an out-of-state mail-order distributor.
- Ephedrine was widely advertised and lawful to possess in many states at the time, but Idaho classified ephedrine as a controlled substance.
- Fox was charged with (1) possession of a controlled substance (ephedrine) and (2) conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance (methamphetamine).
- The trial court dismissed the conspiracy count.
- Fox sought to introduce out-of-state advertisements for ephedrine to show he did not know ephedrine was illegal in Idaho.
- The trial court excluded the advertisements as irrelevant, reasoning that knowledge of illegality was not an element of the possession offense.
- Fox entered a conditional guilty plea to possession, preserving his right to appeal the evidentiary ruling and the mental-state interpretation.

## Issues

1. Whether Idaho’s controlled-substance possession offense requires proof that the defendant knew the substance was illegal or listed as controlled, rather than merely knowing he possessed the substance.
2. Whether evidence that ephedrine was openly advertised and lawful in other states was admissible to support a claimed mistake about Idaho law.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the possession offense requires only general intent: knowledge that one possesses the substance.
- The State was not required to prove Fox knew ephedrine was illegal in Idaho or knew its controlled-substance classification.
- Because mistake of law did not negate any element of the offense, the trial court properly excluded the advertisements as irrelevant.

## Legal Principles

- Possession of a controlled substance under Idaho law is a general-intent crime requiring proof that the defendant knowingly possessed the substance.
- Ignorance or mistake regarding a substance’s legal status (a mistake of law) is not a defense to controlled-substance possession.
- When knowledge of illegality is not an element of the charged offense, evidence offered solely to show the defendant’s misunderstanding of the law is irrelevant and may be excluded.

## Conclusion

The court treated controlled-substance possession as requiring awareness of possession, not awareness that the substance is contraband; therefore, Fox’s claimed lack of knowledge that ephedrine was illegal in Idaho could not defeat liability, and the exclusion of advertisements offered to support that mistake was affirmed.


State v. Fox, 866 P.2d 181 (Idaho 1993)