State of Maine v. Aaron S. Lowden
2014 ME 29
| Me. | 2014Background
- In Jan 2012 Aaron Lowden rented a second-floor room; homeowners reported strange odors and basement activity and called police.
- Deputies found Lowden in the basement tending a Coleman stove with glass containers; one contained a boiling substance emitting fumes; officers evacuated the house and called the MDEA clandestine lab team.
- Searches recovered chemicals, glassware, and a handbook (“Uncle Fester’s Synthetic Manual”) describing conversion of phenylalanine into methamphetamine; some but not all chemicals for that method were present; no methamphetamine was found.
- Lowden was indicted for aggravated trafficking (Class A) under Maine law predicated on trafficking via manufacture of methamphetamine; the jury was instructed on both trafficking and attempted trafficking and returned a guilty verdict for trafficking.
- The trial court denied Lowden’s Rule 29 motion despite finding he lacked all ingredients to complete methamphetamine manufacture; Lowden appealed, arguing the State failed to prove completed manufacture and that construing “manufacture” to include mere preparation would render the attempt statute surplusage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence sufficed to prove trafficking by manufacture of methamphetamine | State: circumstantial evidence of drug lab activity and possession of precursors supports trafficking conviction | Lowden: no finished methamphetamine or all necessary ingredients; manufacture requires completed product, not mere preparation | Vacated conviction — insufficient evidence to prove completed manufacture |
| How to interpret “manufacture” in 17-A M.R.S. §1101(4) | State: statutory definition listing “produce, prepare, compound, convert or process” covers preparation/processing | Lowden: reading “manufacture” to include mere preparation would duplicate and nullify criminal attempt statute §152 | Court: read statutory definitions harmoniously; trafficking requires actual production of a scheduled drug, not mere preparation |
| Whether attempt to traffic is a lesser-included offense of trafficking | State: (implicit) lesser included conviction might be appropriate | Lowden: sought acquittal or reduction to attempt | Court: attempted trafficking is not a lesser included offense because trafficking can be committed by knowing (not intentional) conduct; cannot remand for conviction of attempt; must enter acquittal |
| Whether prior convictions elevated the charge and affect sufficiency review | State: prior convictions were stipulated, elevating penalty to Class A aggravated trafficking | Lowden: challenge focused on sufficiency of trafficking element, not prior convictions | Court: aggravating prior convictions were stipulated and do not alter analysis that trafficking element was not proven |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carey, 77 A.3d 471 (Me. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Severy, 8 A.3d 715 (Me. 2010) (same; statutory interpretation de novo)
- State v. Stevens, 912 A.2d 1229 (Me. 2007) (rule of lenity in criminal statutory construction)
- State v. Shepley, 822 A.2d 1147 (Me. 2003) (avoid constructions producing absurd or inconsistent results)
- State v. Woo, 938 A.2d 13 (Me. 2007) (upheld trafficking conviction where substantial circumstantial evidence indicated methamphetamine had been produced)
- Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996) (appellate courts may enter judgment for lesser included offense when greater conviction reversed on grounds affecting only greater offense)