105 A.3d 1029
Me.2014Background
- In Nov. 2011 police found items in Fox’s car (plastic tubing, acetone, drain cleaner) that prompted an MDEA investigation; jail calls implicated Fox and his wife and referenced removing items from a shed.
- MDEA searched Fox’s mother’s shed with consent and found items used in meth manufacture (glass jug, sodium hydroxide, starter fluid, funnel, tubing, duct tape); tubing and a blue funnel tested positive for methamphetamine residue.
- An associate, Larry Easler, admitted buying pseudoephedrine for Fox with the understanding he would receive meth in return; Fox’s wife admitted purchasing pseudoephedrine and said Fox had manufactured meth in the shed (but testified they purchased meth from Easler).
- Fox was indicted for aggravated trafficking (Class A) based on a prior felony drug conviction; counsel signed a stipulation to the prior conviction but the stipulation was not entered in evidence or docketed.
- At trial the court instructed that manufacture need not be complete to convict; jury convicted Fox of aggravated trafficking and other counts; Fox appealed on sufficiency, jury instruction error, and the unstated stipulation.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Fox's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — evidence of manufacturing methamphetamine | Circumstantial and direct evidence (residue on tubing/funnel, materials in shed, admissions/phone calls, Easler’s purchases) support inference that meth was produced | Only some ingredients found; no direct proof Fox made meth or linked to residue | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; residue plus circumstantial proof permitted inference manufacture was completed |
| Sufficiency — proof of prior conviction (aggravating element) | The parties’ stipulation obviated need to introduce proof to jury even if not docketed | Stipulation never entered in evidence so State failed to prove prior conviction element | Affirmed — stipulation by counsel relieved State of presenting the prior-conviction evidence; Fox waived objection |
| Jury instruction — whether manufacture must be completed | The statute’s definition and prior dicta could be read to allow conviction without completed manufacture; regardless, residue evidence makes any error harmless | Instruction erroneously told jury completion unnecessary; that was plain error | Court found the instruction was legally erroneous under later precedent but not plain error here because no reasonable probability the instruction affected outcome (residue showed completed manufacture) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Woo, 938 A.2d 13 (Me. 2007) (circumstantial evidence may suffice to infer successful manufacture of methamphetamine)
- State v. Lowden, 87 A.3d 694 (Me. 2014) (vacating trafficking conviction where no evidence manufacture was completed; held a scheduled drug must actually be produced)
- State v. Ireland, 870 A.2d 119 (Me. 2005) (a defendant’s stipulation to a prior conviction can obviate the need for proof or jury findings of that conviction)