Opinion ID: 2167257
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: evidence of young's previous methamphetamine manufacturing

Text: Young argues that he suffered prejudice when the trial court allowed the Commonwealth to introduce testimony from Sorrell indicating that he had observed Young cooking crank at the trailer on somewhere between six (6) and eight (8) previous occasions during 1998 and that Young had taught him how to perform the procedure. Young describes this testimony as inadmissible KRE 404(a) character evidence. Prior to trial, the Commonwealth filed notice, pursuant to KRE 404(c), that it intended to introduce KRE 404(b) evidence that Young had operated the methamphetamine lab for several months and had trained others in how to manufacture methamphetamine. Young filed a memorandum objecting to the admission of such evidence, and the Court heard arguments on this issue in chambers prior to trial. The trial court ruled that the Commonwealth could introduce the evidence to prove Young's knowledge of methamphetamine manufacturing. Sorrell testified during the Commonwealth's direct examination of him that Young taught him to manufacture methamphetamine in January 1998, that he had periodic contact with Young at Young's trailer residence, and that Young principally used a back bedroom in the trailer to manufacture methamphetamine. We hold that the trial court properly ruled that the evidence regarding Young's methamphetamine manufacturing during the preceding months was admissible to show that Young had knowledge of this process. At trial, Young maintained that he did not know how to manufacture methamphetamine. Under KRE 404(b): Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible: (1) If offered for some other purpose, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident . . . . [3] In order to prove Young guilty of methamphetamine manufacturing, the jury instructions required the Commonwealth to demonstrate that Young possessed the chemicals and other equipment with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. [4] KRS 218A.1431(1) defines manufacture as: [T]he production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, or processing of methamphetamine, or possession with intent to manufacture, either directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of natural origin or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by combination of extraction and chemical synthesis . . . . [5] We hold that the trial court properly found Sorrell's testimony relevant to the question of whether Young knew how to manufacture methamphetamine from the materials assembled at the trailer, and we find evidence concerning Young's knowledge highly probative of his intent. [6] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the risk of prejudice associated with this evidence did not substantially outweigh its relevance. [7]