Lawyer’s LSD Conviction Overturned : Appeals: The court says Douglas Palaschak can’t be charged with possessing a drug that he had consumed.

A state appeals court on Thursday reversed a Ventura lawyer’s conviction for possession of LSD, saying people cannot be charged with possessing drugs that have been consumed.

The decision by the Ventura-based 2nd District Court of Appeal sets aside Douglas A. Palaschak’s 1992 misdemeanor conviction. He had been sentenced to three years probation and 90 days in jail, but had not served the jail time pending the appeal.

Palaschak and his secretary at the time, Jessica Jobin, were arrested May 9, 1991, after another worker informed police about an LSD party at the attorney’s office on Telephone Road.

Jobin, who had 46 doses of the drug in her purse, pleaded guilty to possession of LSD and testified against Palaschak.

A Ventura County Superior Court jury acquitted Palaschak of furnishing LSD to a minor--the 17-year-old worker who alerted police--and conspiracy to possess LSD. But he was convicted of possessing the drug.

He appealed the conviction, asserting that he was not in possession of LSD at the time of his arrest. Palaschak admitted he had taken 1 1/2 doses of LSD, but had no additional drugs in his possession.

Court testimony showed that police found Palaschak and Jobin “experiencing symptoms of LSD ingestion--hallucinations, confusion, dizziness and lip-licking,” the appeals court ruling said.

One month after his arrest, Palaschak also admitted to newspaper reporters that he had ingested LSD moments before his arrest. He told the reporters that the drug provided “a better social environment” for his law office.

But in his appeal, Palaschak said there was insufficient evidence to support his LSD possession conviction.

He argued that under the law, use of a controlled substance is not evidence of possession because after consumption, the user no longer has control of the drug.

Palaschak further contended that use of LSD is not a crime in California, although possession is.

In its argument to the appeal court, the attorney general’s office said there was sufficient evidence to show that Palaschak possessed LSD prior to using it. They cited his statements to police and to the reporters.

In its decision, written by Justice Arthur Gilbert, the appeals court agreed that evidence of consumption is not enough to convict a suspect of possession, even if the possession is observed by a trial witness, such as Jobin.

“Were the rule otherwise, every person under the influence of a controlled substance could also be charged and convicted of possession of that substance,” Gilbert wrote. The court also noted that being under the influence of LSD is not a crime in California.

Gilbert acknowledged that Palaschak had to possess the LSD before using it. But he wrote that in order to prove possession “the prosecution must show possession other than what the defendant has consumed.”

In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Kenneth R. Yegan said the fact that Palaschak admitted to being under the influence of LSD at his arrest proves that he possessed the drug.

“An appellate court should only reverse a judgment if there has been a miscarriage of justice,” Yegan wrote. “My common sense tells me there was no miscarriage of justice.”

Palaschak expressed satisfaction with the ruling.

“The Court of Appeal agrees with what I have said from the beginning--that use of LSD is legal, possession is not,” he said. “I used it.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. Kim G. Gibbons, who tried the case, reacted angrily to the reversal, which he said could set a bad precedent.

“The idea that you can consume a drug to avoid being convicted of possession is absurd,” he said.

Palaschak’s law practice dealt mainly with bankruptcy cases. The California State Bar suspended his license after the conviction--an action that he said had devastating consequences.

“People say that’s what you get for breaking the law,” he said. “But the appeal court said I didn’t break the law. The State Bar took my license before it was adjudicated, and someone needs to reach up and punch them in the nose.”

The bar has said it was investigating several issues related to Palaschak.

One involved a contract that he had asked prospective female employees to sign. The contract said applicants had been chosen “primarily on the basis of sexual appeal” and that Palaschak was considering the applicant as a potential girlfriend.

By signing the contract, the prospective employee gave the attorney the right to make sexual overtures, both physical and verbal. Only one known applicant ever signed the contract, which Palaschak argued was drawn up to protect him from “sexual blackmail.”

It was unclear Thursday what effect the appeals court ruling would have on the suspension of Palaschak’s license to practice law. State Bar authorities could not be reached.

Investigators arrested him in August on suspicion of handling a bankruptcy without a law license. He has not been charged in that case, and prosecutors said they are still investigating.