The Supreme Court today said “yes” to the Ninth Circuit’s request in U.S. v. Soto to answer questions of California criminal law.
The questions are: “When a defendant is charged with possession of a listed controlled substance under California Health & Safety Code § 11378, must the state prove, and must the jury unanimously agree, that the defendant possessed the actual listed controlled substance, and not an analog of that substance as defined under California Health & Safety Code § 11401? Or may the jury convict if it finds the state has proven the defendant possessed either the actual controlled substance or an analog of that substance, without unanimous agreement as to which?” [Links added.]
More about the case here.
The Supreme Court historically agrees to help out the Ninth Circuit when asked. Although the court has turned down two requests in recent years, in the long run the court has been extremely accommodating, having granted 24 of the last 27 requests, dating back to July 2018. Before the most recent rejections (in August 2023 and April 2024), the lone denial over the past eight years was in October 2019.
Related:
Asked and answered: California Supreme Court responses to Ninth Circuit questions
The constitutionality of the Supreme Court answering the Ninth Circuit’s legal questions
Ninth Circuit dissenter wanted to send insurance law question to the Supreme Court
Ask not what the Supreme Court can do for the Ninth Circuit
Justice Kruger and Judge Owens talk about the Supreme Court answering Ninth Circuit questions
The shadow docket . . . of California’s Supreme Court, part 2
