Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Police officers went to a home in a residential neighborhood in response to a report of a methamphetamine lab located at the house. They knocked on the front door of the house, and D eventually opened the door. Ds mother arrived at the home a short time later and gave permission for the officers to search the residence, as well as a detached garage. They found a plastic baggy containing a white powdery substance located in the ceiling of a downstairs bedroom. A police scanner was also found. The substance tested negative for a controlled substance but was suitable for use as a cutting agent for pure methamphetamine. Potential methamphetamine precursors and numerous materials used to manufacture methamphetamine, including six cans of starting fluid, a sack containing a white granular substance, two metal cylinders with brass fittings corroded from anhydrous ammonia use, a one-gallon glass jar, plastic pitchers, a container of acetone, a container of Coleman camping fluid, and three unopened boxes of Benadryl were found in the garage. The following note was found in a small spiral notebook: “B-I had to go inside to pee + calm my nerves somewhat down. When I came out to go get Brian I looked over to the street North of here + there sat a black + white w/the dude out of his car facing our own direction - no one else was with him.” A car parked in the driveway of the home yielded up an air tank sprayer and some steel and brass flexible hoses with fittings. D was charged with possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with intent to use it as a precursor and with possession of ether with the intent to use it as a precursor. At trial, P introduced some of the items seized during the search. The handwritten note was introduced over D's hearsay objection. P argued the note was not offered to prove the truth of the matters it asserted but to connect D to the items in the garage used to manufacture methamphetamine and the Benadryl. P argued the note was written to d based on the first letter of his first name. D was found guilty of possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with intent to use it as a precursor and acquitted him of the possession of ether charge. D appealed. The court of appeals reversed the conviction after concluding the trial court erred in admitting the handwritten note and after finding the remaining evidence presented by the State was insufficient to show P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co