# State v. Prater

> Indiana Court of Appeals · March 12, 2010 · 922 N.E.2d 746

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729920

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Indiana, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Dustin PRATER, Appellee-Defendant
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 12, 2010
- **Citations:** 922 N.E.2d 746; 2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 394; 2010 WL 876837
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bradford
- **Judges:** Najam, Friedlander, Bradford
- **Cited by:** 40 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729920

## Opinion text

BRADFORD, Judge,
dissenting.
In my view, persons who possess anhydrous ammonia for purposes of manufacturing methamphetamine, even if they intend for another individual to do the manufacturing, are covered under Indiana Code section 35-48-4-14.5(c) (2007). For this reason, I respectfully dissent.
I understand that the plain language of section 35-48-4-14.5(c) eriminalizes a person's possession of anhydrous ammonia "with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine." I am unwilling to infer from this language that the person possessing the ammonia must also intend to be the actual manufacturer. Making methamphetamine is a multi-step, multi-ingredient process, often involving multiple parties, and I cannot conclude that a person whose task it is to collect ammonia to make methamphetamine is somehow immunized from criminal lability if he does not personally involve himself in the manufacturing process. This, in my view, is not a result intended by our legislature.
As the majority observes, Indiana Code section 35-48-4-14.5(g) criminalizes persons who sell, transfer, distribute, or furnish a chemical reagent or precursor to another person with the intent that the recipient use the reagent or precursors to manufacture a controlled substance. Given the obvious intent of the General Assembly to criminalize both the possession and the sale or transfer of ammonia for methamphetamine purposes, I am unwilling to permit Prater's actions to fall *751 through the cracks. Prater, who fully intended that his ammonia be used to manufacture methamphetamine, did not sell or transfer the ammonia, but he did possess it. I would reverse the trial court's grant of Prater's motion to correct error and its vacation of his conviction pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-48-4-14.5(c).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729920. Public record. Not legal advice.