Opinion ID: 1490481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: denial of unanimous verdict by manufacturing instruction containing two theories of guilt

Text: The Appellant claims he was denied his right to a unanimous verdict when two theories of manufacturing methamphetamine were combined into one jury instruction. Specifically, he claims that the Commonwealth failed to establish the prong of 218A.1432 requiring possession of the equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine. KRS 218A.1432, as in effect at that time, states in pertinent part: (1) A person is guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine when he knowingly and unlawfully: (a) Manufactures methamphetamine; or (b) Possesses the chemicals or equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. This Court, in Kotila v. Commonwealth, 114 S.W.3d 226 (Ky.2003), analyzed the language the chemicals or equipment for the manufacture.... found in KRS 218A.1432 and determined that language to require ALL of the chemicals or equipment necessary to manufacture methamphetamine. We must recognize, however, that methamphetamine in any form and manufactured by any method is nonetheless methamphetamine and a conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine can be sustained so long as ALL the equipment or ALL the chemicals for that particular method used are present. [6] When a jury is presented, in a single instruction, alternate theories of guilt for the same offense, each juror's verdict [must] be based on a theory of guilt in which the Commonwealth has proven each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt. Burnett v. Commonwealth, 31 S.W.3d 878 (Ky.2000). As we stated previously in our discussion of the denial of the motions for directed verdict, the Commonwealth met its burden of proof on each of the 218A.1432 prongs. We decline to be repetitive. The trial court did not err by instructing the jury as to both prongs, or theories of guilt in this case.