Opinion ID: 2591946
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Child Endangerment

Text: [¶ 14] Baker's next claim is that the district court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to the two counts of child endangerment, in violation of § 6-4-405(a)(ii), because the State failed to prove the children were present at the time of the manufacturing activities. [¶ 15] When reviewing a district court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, this Court accept[s] as true the State's evidence, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, leaving out entirely any conflicting evidence. Mattern v. State, 2007 WY 24, ¶ 28, 151 P.3d 1116, 1128-29 (Wyo.2007). [¶ 16] At the end of the State's case-in-chief, Baker moved for a judgment of acquittal, claiming that the State failed to prove that any manufacturing was taking place in the home or that the children were ever in the home at the time methamphetamine was being manufactured. The district court, however, found that a prima facie case had been established as to this issue and, according to the State, there was ample evidence at trial to allow the district court to reach its judgment on Baker's motion. Through various witnesses the State established that for several months during 2006, Baker conspired with various individuals to operate a clandestine methamphetamine lab. [¶ 17] First, Zachary Wolf testified that Baker was seeking a recipe to manufacture methamphetamine, and shortly thereafter, Wolf saw several bottles of anhydrous ammonia in Baker's garage. Wolf also testified that he saw Baker trying to obtain methamphetamine from a white sludge with hydrochloric acid. Wolf also testified that he and Baker tried to make methamphetamine two or three times and that Merck bought cold medicine and would break down those pills inside the house. And, most importantly to this issue, Wolf testified that he was aware that Merck's two young children were living in the home during this activity. [¶ 18] Merck's testimony also supported that Baker conspired to operate a clandestine methamphetamine lab. Merck testified that when she moved in with Baker, so did her two children. What is more, she also testified that she would cleanse the methamphetamine in her home by pouring acetone over it and then letting it dry inside the home. Also, Merck explained that she would put the drugs in her freezer to accelerate the evaporation process and would often use a propane torch or burner to continue the cleansing process. Merck unequivocally admitted to the criminal activity taking place in her home over the course of basically a year: [Mr. Marken]: Ms. Merck, would you agree that between February 1, 2006, and December 20, 2006, that you knowingly and intentionally conspired with or aided David Baker to engage in a clandestine laboratory operation? [Ms. Merck]: Yes, sir. Q. And you would agree that the site of that clandestine laboratory operation was [your home] in Casper, Wyoming? A: Yes, sir. [¶ 19] It is altogether reasonable to assume that from this evidence, the jury was able to infer that while this manufacturing of methamphetamine was taking place, the children were present. [2] Certainly, operating under the applicable standard of review, there was ample evidence presented that allowed the jury to convict Baker of two counts of endangering children. The district court did not err in denying Baker's motion for judgment of acquittal.