Opinion ID: 2167257
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: evidence of anhydrous ammonia theft

Text: Young also asserts he was prejudiced by testimony that persons who cook methamphetamine typically obtain the quantities of anhydrous ammonia necessary for the procedure by stealing it from farm supply stores and by Sorrell's testimony that he and Young had, in fact, stolen anhydrous ammonia in this manner. Young contends the evidence concerning theft of anhydrous ammonia has nothing to do with any of the facts of consequence, and only inflames a rural jury with evidence of theft from farm supply stores. During the pre-trial discussion in chambers regarding this evidence, the trial court ruled evidence relating to Young's theft of anhydrous ammonia relevant to the extent that it related to Young's knowledge of the methamphetamine manufacturing process. During the Commonwealth's direct examination of Officer Albro, the prosecutor asked how a person obtains anhydrous ammonia and Officer Albro responded: What we are seeing in the Pennyrile area and what we're hearing from confessions of suspects that we deal with is that the majority of all it is stolen or bought from individual [sic] who have stolen it. The primary source that they're getting this fromthe farmers and the tanks in the fields, or like the co-op crop, Southern States, places like that, where they steal them out of larger containers. During the Commonwealth's direct examination of Sorrell, the prosecutor solicited testimony concerning the manner in which Sorrell and Young obtained anhydrous ammonia: Q: How many times in 1998 did you personally go to his residence in that mobile home on Highway 175 North? A: Six, maybe eight. Six, eight times. Q: For what purpose did you go to this residence? A: To get anhydrous. For him to show me where to get anhydrous. Q: Why did you need anhydrous? A: To cook methamphetamine. Q: Well, did he have anhydrous there at his house? A: No. Q: Well, how would you get anhydrous ammonia? A: We'd go to the farm supply away from his house there on the other side of Bremen. I don't even knowI don't know the name of it and get it there. Q: You mean you went to a business? A: Yeah. Q: Went inside and bought some anhydrous ammonia? A: No. We'd go at night and steal it out of a tank. Q: Well, tell us how it would be stolen out of a tank? A: Hook the hose to a gas jug and turn it on and fill the gas jug up. Q: And for what use was this? Why did you do this? A: To cook crank. Q: How many different occasions did you and [Young] go to these places and obtain anhydrous ammonia? A: Me and him, I think, twice or maybe three times. It might have been three times, I believe, that we went there. . . . Q: Tell us what was done on these occasions that you told us about with the anhydrous ammonia. A: Well, if he needed it, I'd leave some with him and I'd take it. Whatever, you know, I'd fill me up a tank and take it with me. If he needed some of it, or if he needed  I'd leave him a tank or leave him the jug, and take a tank myself. Following Sorrell's testimony, the trial court admonished the jury with respect to the permissible uses of this evidence: You are further instructed concerning that testimony that the defendant was with this witness and there was some items stolen, you shall not consider the evidence of taking the anhydrous ammonia on other occasions for any purpose, except insofar as it may tend to show, if it does so, a motive and intent, preparation or knowledge on the part of the defendant to commit the offense for which the defendant is being tried in this case. We find that the trial court properly found evidence that Young covertly obtained quantities of anhydrous ammonia relevant to the appellant's intent, [8] and we further find that the trial court's admonition prevented Young from suffering prejudice as a result of the introduction of this evidence. [9]