ILNews

Judges disagree on chemical possession charge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeal judges disagreed as to whether a defendant who stole anhydrous ammonia with the intent of selling it to a third party in the future to make methamphetamine, but who never actually sold the chemical, could be charged with possession with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.

The majority of judges said no and affirmed the trial court grant of Dustin Prater's motion to correct error and vacation his conviction of illegal possession of anhydrous ammonia in State of Indiana v. Dustin Prater, No. 08A02-0904-CR-309. Judge Cale Bradford dissented because he believed anyone who possess the chemical for purposes of manufacturing methamphetamine, even if they intend for someone else to make it, is covered under Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-14.5(c).

I.C. Section 35-48-4-14.5(c) requires an individual in possession of anhydrous ammonia have the personal "intent to manufacture methamphetamine or amphetamine" in order to commit a Class D felony under that statute. Prater was charged and convicted under this statute.

The majority read the statute to mean the person who possesses the chemical must also personally have the intent to use the anhydrous ammonia to manufacture methamphetamine to be charged under subsection (c).

"Here, it is clear that the General Assembly sought a balance between not subjecting citizens who merely possess anhydrous ammonia to possible prosecution while, at the same time, seeking to prohibit the nefarious uses of that chemical," wrote Judge Edward Najam for the majority.

The majority found their reading of subsection (c) to be supported by subsection (g) of the statute, which says it is not the mere possession of the chemical that is criminal but the sale, transfer, distribution, or furnishing of it to another person with the knowledge or intent that the recipient will use the chemical "regent or precursor to manufacture" methamphetamine.

If the General Assembly had intended that mere possession of anhydrous ammonia is a crime, it wouldn't have included the words "with the intent to manufacture" in the statute, wrote Judge Najam. The General Assembly could have included the language "intend to," but did not.

Judge Bradford wrote in his dissent that he couldn't conclude that a person whose task it is to collect the chemical to make methamphetamine is somehow immunized from criminal liability if he doesn't personally involve himself in the manufacturing process.

"Given the obvious intent of the General Assembly to criminalize both the possession and the sale or transfer of ammonia for methamphetamine purposes, I am unwilling to permit Prater's actions to fall through the cracks," he wrote.

Judge Bradford would reverse the grant of Prater's motion to correct error and the vacation of his sentence.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT