concluding that the possession of a large quantity of cold relief medicine, “without additional evidence, either direct or circumstantial, is insufficient proof of intent to manufacture under the statute. There was no additional evidence in this case”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the possession of a large quantity of cold relief medicine, “without additional evidence, either direct or circumstantial, is insufficient proof of intent to manufacture under the statute. There was no additional evidence in this case”
- explaining “a person is ‘under the influence’ when the consumption of alcohol affects the person’s reasoning or mental ability, impairs a person’s judgment, visibly excites a person’s emotions, or causes a person to lose control of bodily actions”
- finding witnesses’ and police officers’ reports regarding defendant’s erratic driving and behavior supported a finding that he was under the influence of alcohol when he operated his vehicle
- finding sufficient evidence for OWI conviction when defendant had acted abnormally, driven erratically, acknowledged consuming alcohol, and exhibited numerous signs of intoxication
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CARTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
I do not perceive a sufficient distinction between the facts of this case and the facts of State v. Heuser, 661 N.W.2d 157, 166 (Iowa 2003), to warrant a different result. In Heuser we held that intent to manufacture could be inferred from the possession of an unusually large amount of pseu-doephedrine by one who also possessed lithium batteries that might be of use in the manufacturing process. Much emphasis was placed on the surreptitious manner in which these substances were acquired.
Guilty knowledge is equally inferable in the present case from the fact that the pseudoephedrine was brazenly ripped off in the store and quickly removed from the premises by a speeding automobile. The scenarios in the two cases are equally probative of intent to manufacture a prohibited controlled substance.
The alternative scenario, which the majority proposes as being equally probative, i.e., that the precursor was to be used by another in the manufacturing process, would have been equally plausible in the Heuser case. I would affirm the judgment of the district court.
LARSON, J., joins this dissent.