Utah v. Horsley

Brief Fact Summary.

Pursuant to a search warrant, police officers found multiple items in Defendant residence, including a cooker with marijuana inside.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

When a defendant is cooking marijuana in a manner than causes it to process the controlled substance, either directly or indirectly to extract substances from it natural origin, the defendant is manufacturing marijuana.

Facts.

Police officers searched Defendant’s, Horsley’s, apartment, pursuant to a search warrant. The officers found multiple items, including a substantial amount of marijuana, scales, a cooker, and other paraphernalia. The cooker was turned on, cooking a plant material. A forensic chemist testified that marijuana was inside the cooker. Further, people cook marijuana to create a more concentrated form of the plant. However, the hallucinogenic material remains the same, and the result is still marijuana. Defendant, on appeals, alleges that the statute he was charged with only applies to the manufacture of controlled substances. However, by cooking the marijuana, he not manufacturing marijuana. Therefore, Defendant claims the charge should be dismissed.

Issue.

Whether cooking marijuana with a cooker constitute the manufacture of marijuana.

Held.

Yes, the cooking of marijuana with a cooker constitutes the manufacture of marijuana.

Dissent.

The forensic chemist testified that the chemical make up of the substance remained unchanged. Therefore, because there is no evidence that Defendant produced or manufactured marijuana, Defendant did not manufacture the marijuana, and his charges should be dismissed.

Discussion.

In Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association v. United States, 207 U.S. 556 (1908), the court noted that manufacture means that “(t)here must be (a) transformation; a new different article must emerge, ‘having a distinctive name, character, or use.†Likewise, Utah Law indicates that the term manufacture means  “the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of natural origins.†Further, the statutory definition of marijuana does not make a distinction between regular marijuana and a more concentrated form of it. Here, by cooking the marijuana, the court finds that Defendant was processing a controlled substance directly or indirectly to extract substances from its natural origin. Therefore, the charges should not be dismissed.