It is not necessary for the state to negate any exemption or exception in the Controlled Substances Act in any complaint, information, indictment or other pleading or in any trial, hearing or other proceeding under the Controlled Substances Act. The burden of proof of any exemption or exception is upon the person claiming it.

History: 1953 Comp., § 54-11-36, enacted by Laws 1972, ch. 84, § 36.

State not required to disprove excuses or exemptions. — The state's burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not entail the burden of disproving all excuses, provisos, exceptions and exemptions which might possibly relieve a defendant of criminal liability for the offense with which he is charged. State v. Everidge, 1967-NMSC-035, 77 N.M. 505, 424 P.2d 787, cert. denied, sub nom. Greene v. U.S., 386 U.S. 976, 87 S. Ct. 1171, 18 L. Ed. 2d 136 (1967).

Burden on defendant to negate narcotic character of substance. — The burden of proof is on the defendant, not the state, to prove that the substance identified as heroin was not a narcotic drug as an exemption or exception. State v. Atencio, 1973-NMCA-110, 85 N.M. 484, 513 P.2d 1266, cert. denied, 85 N.M. 483, 513 P.2d 1265.

State's burden of proof in forfeiture proceeding. — In the forfeiture portion of the trial, the burden of proof is on the state to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the property in question is subject to forfeiture. State v. Nunez, 2000-NMSC-013, 129 N.M. 63, 2 P.3d 264.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 28 C.J.S. Drugs and Narcotics § 148 et seq.