State v. Jimmy Booth Jr., 364 Mont. 190

Booth was charged with felony possession of precursors to dangerous drugs under §45-9-107(1), and misdemeanor restricted possession of pseudoephedrine under §50-32-501.
He was convicted by a jury on Count I and sentenced to seven years with two suspended; Count II was six months concurrent in jail.
The State alleged Booth possessed pseudoephedrine in conjunction with other precursors to manufacture methamphetamine.
The defense conceded possession of 10.08 grams of pseudoephedrine but argued no element of Count I was proven due to lack of an added precursor.
Booth’s counsel did not move to dismiss Count I at the close of the State’s case, despite the argument.
The main issue is whether §45-9-107(1)(a) requires two or more listed precursors (a “combination”).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 45-9-107(1)(a) require two or more precursors?	State: no two precursors needed; possession of listed chemical suffices.	Booth: statute requires a combination of precursors; single pseudoephedrine is insufficient.	Two or more precursors required; possession of one alone cannot satisfy the statute.

State v. Azure, 344 Mont. 188 (Mont. 2008) (sufficiency of evidence standard; rational juror could convict)
State v. Daniels, 362 Mont. 426 (Mont. 2011) (analysis of element proof beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Stiffarm, 359 Mont. 116 (Mont. 2011) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning rule)