Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe Court of Appeals has reversed and remanded a man’s conviction on two counts based on a violation of state and federal prohibitions against double jeopardy. In Scott D. Moore v. State, Moore appealed his convictions of possession of anhydrous ammonia and possession of reagents or precursors, contending they are lesser-included offenses of the Count I of dealing in methamphetamine.
In July 2006, William Cashin and Moore went to Miles Farm Center, where Moore brought out a pitcher containing a fuming substance with a strong odor. As they left in Cashin’s vehicle with the pitcher, two Princeton police officers noticed the vehicle and followed it. Once they noticed the police, Moore threw the pitcher out the window. The pitcher had a smoky, white, powdery substance inside, later proven to be an active methamphetamine solution.
Moore was charged with and found guilty of Count I – dealing a controlled substance, Count II – possession of anhydrous ammonia, and Count III – possession of reagents or precursors. Moore filed a Motion to Correct Error, alleging a witness for his defense was not properly subpoenaed prior to trial and he claimed the state failed to present sufficient evidence to convict him of dealing. He also claimed his conviction on all three counts violates state and federal prohibitions against double jeopardy.
In the opinion authored by Judge Patricia Riley, the court affirms the trial court’s denial of Moore’s Motion to Correct Error. Records show no subpoena was issued to Casey Winters, but it appears to the court that knowledge of Winters’ existence came “too little and too late” in this case.
The judges also affirmed the state met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Moore “knowingly or intentionally produced, prepared, propagated, compounded, converted, or processed methamphetamine.”
In Moore’s argument that his conviction of Counts II and III are double jeopardy, the court agreed and reversed and remanded with instruction that the trial court vacate those convictions.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.