ILNews

COA: Evidence supports dealing conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant’s conviction of dealing in methamphetamine, finding that pill dough created while making the drug could be used to count toward the three grams needed to charge someone with Class A felony dealing.

In James R. Hundley v. State of Indiana, No. 24A01-1010-CR-550, James Hundley challenged his conviction of and sentence for Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine. Police went to Hundley’s grandparents’ property on a tip that methamphetamine was being made there. The grandparents took police to a secluded, wooded area behind their home where their grandson, James, hung out. Police saw evidence of methamphetamine and obtained a search warrant for Hundley’s truck. Inside they found more evidence of manufacturing of methamphetamine, including pill dough, which is produced during an intermediate step in making the drug, but contains methamphetamine. Hundley wasn’t there while police were on the property.
 
Hundley claimed that the state didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the one who made the meth at the campsite. But the evidence ties Hundley to the drug and shows he had the intent and capability to maintain control over the meth lab. The meth lab was found in his truck, which was locked and no one else had access to it. A pill bottle was found with his name on it, and after he was arrested, Hundley admitted to his involvement with the meth lab.

Hundley also challenged his conviction on the grounds that the state didn’t prove he was dealing meth because it didn’t show that the weight of the drug found was in excess of three grams. The conviction was based on the weight of the pill dough sample, and that contained other material in addition to methamphetamine.

“We hold that where, as here, the intermediate step is so near the end of the manufacturing process that the final product is present in the chemical compound, that substance qualifies as an ‘adulterated drug’ for purposes of our manufacturing statutes,” wrote Judge Edward Najam.

The COA has previously held that the additional weight of water added to pure cocaine may be considered when determining the weight of the cocaine. In addition, the statute prohibits the manufacture of methamphetamine “pure or adulterated,” so the production of the drug is prohibited, even if the meth produced is impure, the judge added.

The appellate judges also upheld Hundley’s 40-year sentence, with 10 years suspended to probation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT