ILNews

Majority reverses conviction based on meth manufacturing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A divided Indiana Court of Appeals has determined that the state can’t use the amount of manufacturing materials and empty packets of ingredients at a person’s home to prove he was dealing in that substance, without clear evidence the drug would have been produced in that amount.

The ruling came in Douglas W. Fancil v. State of Indiana, No. 20A01-1107-CR-339, with the panel affirming and reversing in part a ruling by Elkhart Circuit Judge Terry Shewmaker.

Douglas W. Fancil appeals his jury conviction for Class A felony dealing with methamphetamine, based on the police finding no meth in his residence and the prosecutor’s reliance on the amount of manufacturing materials and his past history of buying pseudoephedrine as key evidence. At trial, the state called a detective experienced in meth manufacturing to testify about the process and prove that Fancil manufactured the pseudoephedrine into three or more grams of meth.

At the end of the trial, the court instructed the jury on both Class A felony dealing in meth and Class B felony dealing in meth as a lesser-included offense. But the court refused to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of possession of reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. The jury found Fancil guilty and he received a 48-year prison sentence, with four years suspended to probation.

On appeal, the panel found the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that Fancil manufactured three or more grams of meth. But the judges found no other error.

Relying on its decision in Halferty v. State, 930 N.E.2d 1149, 1153 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), that involved similar facts, the appellate panel determined that the police detective’s testimony could not be included because it was not conclusive about how much meth could have been made from the materials in the residence. The Supreme Court denied transfer in that case, and Halferty’s conviction was reversed.

In this case, a two-judge majority remanded the case with instructions to enter a conviction for Class B felony dealing in meth with an appropriate sentence.

Judge L. Mark Bailey disagreed with his colleagues Judges John Baker and Carr Darden, finding the evidence was sufficient to conclude what the state charged. He disagreed that the Halferty precedent applies to these facts and that the police detective’s testimony was more conclusive here than it was in that earlier case. As a result, he would have affirmed the trial court because a reasonable inference that Fancil produced three or more grams of meth was possible.

 

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT