Opinion ID: 1758839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Give Proffered Jury Instruction

Text: Both appellants proffered a jury instruction on the manufacturing of methamphetamine charge which included the following language: Except that manufacturing does not include the preparation or compounding of a controlled substance by an individual for his own use. That language is contained in AMCI 2d 6405 as a bracketed part. The appellants claim that, since there was some evidence at trial that the amount of methamphetamine and the drug paraphernalia found in the house was consistent with personal use, the proffered instruction was warranted. At the outset, we address the State's contention that the appellants' argument is procedurally barred due to their failure to abstract the manufacturing instruction which was actually given by the court. Since the appellants did abstract the proffered instruction and their presentation of the issue to the court, and since this is a case involving life imprisonment which requires us to review the record for all errors, see Ark.Sup.Ct.R. 4-3(h), we will, out of an abundance of caution, address the merits of this issue. See Chenowith v. State, 321 Ark. 522, 905 S.W.2d 838 (1995). The record reflects that the jury was instructed on the manufacturing charge as follows: Gary Dean Owens and Judy Christine Owens are charged with the offense of manufacturing methamphetamine. To sustain this charge, the State must prove the following things beyond a reasonable doubt [:] that Gary Dean Owens and/or Judy Christine Owens knowingly or purposely produced or prepared or propagated or compounded or converted or processed methamphetamine directly or indirectly by means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis. The appellants claim that this instruction should have contained the personal use exemption language from the bracketed portion of AMCI 2d 6405. Implicit in the appellants' argument is their contention that a person cannot be charged with manufacture of methamphetamine if that substance is manufactured for the person's own use. This is incorrect. As we explained in Patty v. State, 260 Ark. 539, 542 S.W.2d 494 (1976) and Bedell v. State, 257 Ark. 895, 521 S.W.2d 200 (1975), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931, 97 S.Ct. 1552, 51 L.Ed.2d 775 (1977), the personal-use exemption applies only to the preparation or compounding of a controlled substance. It is not applicable when other means of manufacture have been used. In State v. Childers, 41 N.C.App. 729, 255 S.E.2d 654 (1979), the North Carolina court made this cogent observation: The plain meaning of the exception is to avoid making an individual liable for the felony of manufacturing a controlled substance in the situation where, being already in possession of a controlled substance, he makes it ready for use (i.e., rolling marijuana into cigarettes for smoking) or combines it with other ingredients for use (i.e., making the so-called `Alice B. Toklas' brownies containing marijuana). Other courts have recognized that the personal-use exception does not apply to the creation of the controlled substance, but to the preparation or compounding of a substance already in existence. State v. County Court for Columbia County, 82 Wis.2d 401, 263 N.W.2d 162 (1978); People v. Pearson, 157 Mich.App. 68, 403 N.W.2d 498 (1987). There is abundant evidence in this case that, irrespective of whether the appellants made personal use of their product, they created the product, manufacturing it by means other than mere preparation or compounding. Thus, the personal-use exception is not applicable, and the trial court was correct to refuse the instruction. The appellants also argue that the trial court failed to express its reasons for modifying AMCI 2d 6405. Without deciding whether the refusal to give the bracketed portion of an AMCI constitutes a modification, we note that this issue was not raised below until after the trial was completed. The appellants' objection on this ground was not timely and therefore will not be considered. See Houston v. State, 293 Ark. 492, 739 S.W.2d 154 (1987).