Background
Police searched Ulysses Moran Taylor in March 2025 and found several pills in his jacket. Testing determined that one pill contained fluorofentanyl. The State charged Taylor with possession of a narcotic drug.
At trial, the forensic scientist testified that fluorofentanyl is a fentanyl mimetic with effects similar to fentanyl and a nearly identical chemical structure except for a fluorine substitution. The scientist could not identify the substitution’s precise location, but testified that the tested pill matched a known fluorofentanyl standard. Taylor sought acquittal under Rule 20, arguing the State had not proved that the substitution occurred in a location listed in Arizona’s statutory definition. The trial court denied the motions, and the jury convicted Taylor. He received a six-year prison sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the State presented substantial evidence that Taylor possessed a narcotic drug under A.R.S. § 13-3401(20)(aaa).
The court rejected Taylor’s reading that the State had to establish the exact location of fluorofentanyl’s fluorine substitution. The statute defines narcotic drugs to include fentanyl mimetic substances and substances not chemically or physically distinguishable from them. Given the scientist’s testimony that Taylor’s pill matched a known fluorofentanyl standard and that fluorofentanyl was a fentanyl mimetic, a reasonable juror could find the statutory definition satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key Takeaways
- Expert testimony identifying a pill as fluorofentanyl and matching it to a known standard supported the conviction.
- The State did not need evidence pinpointing the fluorine substitution’s exact molecular location.
- The appellate court affirmed the denial of Taylor’s Rule 20 acquittal motions and his conviction and sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Arizona’s fentanyl-mimetic statute to fluorofentanyl based on expert identification evidence, without requiring molecular-location testimony for the substitution. As a memorandum decision, however, it is not precedential and may be cited only as Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c) permits.