Pubdate: Fri, 13 Jun 2003
Source: Lexington Herald-Leader (KY)
Copyright: 2003 Lexington Herald-Leader
Contact:  http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/240
Author: Charles Wolfe, Associated Press
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/meth.htm (Methamphetamine)

HIGH COURT RULES ON MAKING OF METH

FRANKFORT - A defendant charged with manufacturing methamphetamine must 
have all the necessary equipment or ingredients, the Kentucky Supreme Court 
said in a split decision yesterday.

A defendant who possessed some but not all of the equipment or chemicals 
used in making the illegal drug could be prosecuted for criminal attempt, 
provided there was evidence of intent, the court said.

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Joseph Lambert said offenders would 
have to be caught "red-handed" under the majority interpretation, which he 
called "excessively technical."

The court ordered a new trial for Ronald Kotila, who was convicted in 
Pulaski County on a "meth" manufacturing charge in 1999. Because he also 
had a gun when arrested, his sentence was enhanced to 25 years.

Kotila had possession of many of the items needed for a meth lab, all of 
which are legal by themselves and commonly available: antihistamine 
tablets, lithium batteries, cans of starting fluid, glass jars, rock salt, 
a cooking pot and a wooden spoon, among other things.

However, Kotila did not have two essential ingredients: anhydrous ammonia 
and muriatic acid. And the pertinent Kentucky statute specifies that a 
suspect must possess "the chemicals or equipment for the manufacture of 
methamphetamine."

"The presence of the article 'the' is significant because, grammatically 
speaking, possession of some but not all of the chemicals or equipment does 
not satisfy the statutory language," the court said in an unsigned opinion.

In a partial dissent, Lambert predicted that prosecuting meth manufacturing 
cases will become nigh unto impossible.

A suspect "with the least amount of ingenuity will be able to prevent his 
conviction by merely omitting from his cache of tools and ingredients one 
or two of the more common, and bringing in the missing components only at 
the last moment," Lambert wrote. "Thus to achieve a conviction ... it will 
be necessary to catch the offender 'red-handed.'"

Justices William Graves, William Cooper, Martin Johnstone and Janet Stumbo 
made up the majority. Justice James Keller dissented from part of the 
ruling. Justice Donald Wintersheimer joined in Lambert's opinion.

In other cases, the court:

. Concluded that the governor's power to grant pardons under the Kentucky 
Constitution includes partial or conditional pardons.

The ruling was from a Simpson County criminal case in which a juror with a 
felony conviction on his record had some of his civil rights restored by 
Gov. Paul Patton in 1997.

The court noted that Patton's order for James Stanley specifically restored 
his rights to vote and hold public office. Nothing was said about jury service.

The Court of Appeals ruled that Patton's order restored Stanley to "full 
and complete rights of citizenship." The Supreme Court disagreed. The 
upshot of the ruling is that Terry Anderson, convicted of assault by the 
jury that included Stanley, is to get a new trial in Simpson County Circuit 
Court.

. Ordered a hearing to determine whether the state's subpoenas for records 
of companies controlled by a New Jersey gadget promoter are actually 
intended, as he claims, to gather evidence for a criminal case pending 
against him.

The appeal was by Dennis Lee, sole shareholder of three companies that sell 
"business opportunities" in various products, including a device that 
supposedly produces free electricity.

The attorney general's office got Lee indicted after a pair of sales 
seminars in Louisville last year. He was charged with violating the 
Consumer Protection Act and failing to register his business. The Jefferson 
County grand jury then began investigating Lee's companies.

Lee contends the grand jury is being used to gather evidence while 
circumventing court rules of discovery that entitle him to know the 
evidence against him.

A majority of the justices agreed there was "a serious question regarding 
whether the investigative procedures of the grand jury are being used in an 
improper fashion." They ordered the Jefferson County Circuit Court to 
conduct a hearing on the issue. If Lee prevailed, the subpoenas would have 
to be quashed, the ruling said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom