Joseph K. Buelna v. State of Indiana
20 N.E.3d 137
Ind.2014Background
- Buelna helped Slabach cook methamphetamine in Miller’s attic; Pantoja witnessed the process.
- Police found multiple reaction vessels, precursors, and a bubbling vessel indicating an active lab.
- A thirteen-gram liquid intermediate sample tested positive for methamphetamine; eight spent vessels supported manufacturing activity.
- Co-manufacturer Slabach testified that Buelna manufactured about six grams of final product.
- The State sought a three-gram weight enhancement for Class A felony manufacturing methamphetamine based on the thirteen-gram sample.
- The trial court convicted Buelna of Class A manufacturing methamphetamine; the Court of Appeals affirmed the weight enhancement argument was valid for the final yield.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is adulterated methamphetamine for weighing? | Buelna; adulterated equals any intermediate containing methamphetamine. | Buelna; adulterated equals final product with lingering impurities or diluted by foreign substances. | Adulterated is the final product with impurities or dilution, not an unfinished mixture. |
| How should weight be established when manufacture is incomplete? | State; intermediate weight can support three-gram enhancement. | Buelna; weight requires final yield or reliable yield evidence. | Unfinished mixtures require evidence of final yield; cannot rely solely on intermediate weight. |
| Is there sufficient evidence to support a three-gram threshold for final yield? | State; testimony of six grams final yield plus thirteen-gram intermediate supports threshold. | Buelna; no final yield proven for the thirteen-gram sample. | Direct evidence of final yield plus corroborating testimony supports conviction beyond three grams. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawhorn v. State, 452 N.E.2d 915 (Ind. 1983) (adulterated drug weight when delivered product is ready for consumption)
- Tobias v. State, 479 N.E.2d 508 (Ind. 1985) (total weight of delivered drug for weight enhancement)
- Woodson v. State, 501 N.E.2d 409 (Ind. 1986) (adulterated heroin weight; final product concept)
- Adams v. State, 960 N.E.2d 793 (Ind. 2012) (statutory interpretation and rule of lenity in drug offenses)
- Riley v. State, 711 N.E.2d 489 (Ind. 1999) (encompassing common understanding of drug trade for weight)
- Halsema v. State, 823 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. 2005) (weight proof methods; actual weight or reasonable inference)
- Bush v. State, 772 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (weight proof in manufacturing cases)
- Fancil v. State, 966 N.E.2d 700 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (appropriate method for proving final yield)
- Halferty v. State, 930 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (methodology for proving drug weight)
- Kubsch v. State, 784 N.E.2d 905 (Ind. 2003) (expert vs. lay testimony on drug weight)
- Evans v. State, 810 N.E.2d 335 (Ind. 2004) (definition of adulterated drugs and weight considerations)
- Norwood v. State, 670 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (weight of adulterated cocaine for criminal analysis)