Opinion ID: 1490481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: conviction of manufacturing methamphetamine and first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance (methamphetamine) as violation of double jeopardy

Text: The Appellant alleges that his conviction for both manufacturing and trafficking in methamphetamine violates the principles of double jeopardy. The Appellant did not specifically object to the giving of instructions on both manufacturing and trafficking charges. Appellant's trial counsel merely stated that there would be a double jeopardy problem if Appellant was convicted of both manufacturing and possessing the same methamphetamine. As such, we decline to address the issue beyond the cursory review of the applicable sections of the statute which clearly differentiate between manufacturing and trafficking in methamphetamine. [7] There is no violation of the principles of double jeopardy in the jury's instructions in this case.