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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT