Summary. It is unnecessary to the validity of a guilty or no contest plea to identify the exact controlled substance, as long as the defendant admits that the substance s/he possessed is on the appropriate California controlled substances schedules. People v. Guy (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 593, 601, 165 Cal.Rptr. 463 (knowledge of the character of a controlled substance means that the defendant knew it was a controlled substance, but s/he need not have known its precise chemical composition); People v. Garringer (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 827 [121 Cal.Rptr. 922] (knowledge for the purpose of conviction under Health and Safety Code 11377, is knowledge of the controlled nature of the substance and not its precise chemical composition); CALCRIM 2300, p. 204 (Spring 2008) ("The People do not need to prove that the defendant knew which specific controlled substance (he/she) (sold/ furnished/ administered/ gave away/ transported/ imported), only that (he/she) was aware of the substance's presence and that it was a controlled substance.").

Analysis. To convict a defendant of a California controlled substances offense, the District Attorney need not prove that the defendant knew the exact nature or chemical composition of the specific controlled substance at issue. The prosecution need only prove that the defendant knew that the substance was a controlled substance under California law.

To establish possession of a controlled substance, the prosecution must prove two kinds of knowledge: (1) knowledge of the fact of possession, and (2) knowledge of the character of the thing possessed. (Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (2d ed.1988) Criminal Law, 1006, p. 1139.) Proof of knowledge of the character of the thing possessed is almost invariably circumstantial"e.g., physical custody of the drug, attempts to conceal or dispose of it, evasive or contradictory explanations, admissions, etc. (See, e.g., People v. Williams (1971) 5 C.3d 211, 214 [insufficient evidence of knowledge that tablet in defendants constructive possession was restricted dangerous drug].)

The only knowledge required to sustain a controlled substance conviction is knowledge of the controlled nature of the substance. Knowledge of the character of a controlled substance means that the defendant knew it was a controlled substance; he or she need not have known its precise chemical composition. (People v. Guy (1980) 107 Cal. App. 3d 593, 601]; see also People v. Garringer (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3d 827, 834"835 [Defendant need not know the chemical name or nature of substance, and may have even been incorrect as to which controlled substance it was, as long as he or she knew it was some controlled substance.].) Any more stringent rule as to knowledge would, for all practical purposes, make the statute inapplicable to anyone who had not personally performed a chemical analysis of the contraband in his possession. Needless to say, such was not the Legislatures intent (People v. Garringer, supra, 48 Cal.App.3d at p. 835.)

In People v. Guy, the defendant was stopped for speeding but was found to be in possession of phencyclidine (PCP). He claimed that he thought the PCP was cocaine, having found the substance in a trash can, but he was convicted of possession for sale of PCP. The court of appeals upheld his conviction, finding that knowledge for the purpose of conviction . . . is knowledge of the controlled nature of the substance and not its precise chemical composition. (People v. Guy, supra, 107 Cal. App. 3d at p. 600; see also People v. Romero (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th 147, 155 [finding defendant guilty of sale and transportation of cocaine, even if he thought he was trafficking exclusively in marijuana, because cocaine and marijuana are both controlled substances.].)