The article examines the rationale for an expert's categorical negative opinion on the example of an expert study of narcotic drugs from the poppy plant. The plant mass submitted for examination, which by its external features resembles poppy straw, was examined by microscopic and chemical methods. The microscopic examination revealed anatomical and morphological elements characteristic of poppy sleeping pills, which is the basis for classifying the substance under investigation as poppy straw.
According to the List of Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances and Precursors, poppy straw containing narcotically active opium alkaloids is a narcotic drug.
To confirm the presence of narcotically active opium alkaloids in poppy straw, the study was carried out by microscopic and thin-layer chromatography. As a result of the study, it was established that the poppy straw provided for the study did not contain any narcotically active opium alkaloids, and, therefore, was not a narcotic drug. The absence of opium alkaloids can be explained by the multiple extraction of poppy straw, as evidenced by its appearance, colour and smell of the solvent.
The study of the residues of a dark brown substance from the surface of the dishes was carried out by thin-layer chromatography according to the standard method. As a result of the study, trace amounts of morphine, which is a narcotic drug, were found.
The results of the study provided a categorical negative conclusion, which may be the basis for closing the criminal proceedings. The presence of a small amount of morphine in the substance on the surface of the dishes does not significantly affect this decision.
1. Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy [Criminal procedure code of Ukraine] (Zakon Ukrainy). № 4651-VI (2012). Vylucheno z http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17. [in Ukrainian].
2. Ivaniuk R. V., Yurchyshyn V. D. (2013). Suchasna klasyfikatsiia vysnovkiv eksperta: kryminalistychnyi i kryminalno-protsesualnyi aspekt. [Modern classification of expert conclusions: forensic and criminal procedural aspect ]. Kryminalistychnyi visnyk. ( 1 (19)), 72. [in Ukrainian].
3. Romaniuk B. V. (2002). Suchasni teoretychni ta pravovi problemy vykorystannia spetsialnykh znan u dosudovomu slidstvi. [Modern theoretical and legal problems of using special knowledge in pre-trial investigation]. Kyiv: NAVS Ukrainy. [in Ukrainian].
4. Bulyha A. Z. (2005). Analiz i otsinka ekspertnykh vysnovkiv v kryminalnykh spravakh [Analysis and assessmentof expert opinions in criminal cases]: tezy vystupiv uchasnykiv konferentsii prokuroriv-kryminalistiv, nachalnykiv upravlin karnoho rozshuku, NDEKTs UMVS oblastei ta oblasnykh biuro sudovo-medychnoi ekspertyzy MOZ Ukrainy (s. 27–36). 14 – 15 bereznia, 2005, Kyiv, Ukraina: Ukrainskyi tsentr dukhovnoi kultury. [in Ukrainian].
5. Perelik narkotychnykh zasobiv, psykhotropnykh rechovyn i prekursoriv [List of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and precursorsv] (Postanova KM Ukrainy). № 770. (2000). Vylucheno z https://ips.ligazakon.net/document/KP000770?an=627. [in Ukrainian].