 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hilton6/11/2002
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant Larry Jack Hilton challenges his conviction of conspiracy to commit first-degree controlled-substance crime, arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove that he conspired to manufacture methamphetamine, (2) the trial court's conspiracy instruction denied him the right to a unanimous verdict, (3) the prosecutor's discovery violations denied him the right to a fair trial, and (4) he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Because we find that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, the court's conspiracy instruction was not plain error, and appellant was denied neither his right to a fair trial nor his right to effective assistance of counsel, we affirm.
FACTS
On September 7, 1999, the Itasca County Sheriff's Department received a tip about a methamphetamine lab at appellant Larry Jack Hilton's home that involved Dennis Gowell. Gowell and David Oothoudt had been staying with appellant for a few weeks while appellant prepared to sell his home. In response to the tip, Deputy Dean Scherf followed Gowell's car and observed Gowell buying a jug of muriatic acid, an ingredient used to manufacture methamphetamine. Based on this and other information, Deputy Scherf met with the Hill City Police Department and the Aitkin County Sheriff's Department, who then obtained a search warrant for appellant's home.
The police recovered at least ten items used in the production of methamphetamine, including a 20-pound propane cylinder, burned coffee filters, battery peelings, pseudoephedrine packets, and muriatic acid. The police also found an envelope containing appellant's AA cards and a recipe for methamphetamine written in Gowell's handwriting. Appellant, who was home at the time of the search, was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit first-degree controlled-substance crime in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 152.021, subds. 2a, 3(a), .096, subd. 1 (1998).
Gowell testified at trial that he had manufactured approximately ten batches of methamphetamine while at appellant's home, that appellant had helped him make it, and that appellant received some of the product whenever they made it. Gowell also testified that he planned on making another batch on the day the warrant was executed and that he believed he discussed this with appellant. Finally, Gowell testified that he had asked appellant to move the methamphetamine "lab," because he feared that a recently arrested friend would "roll" on him. When the police arrived, the lab had been moved. The jury heard evidence of Gowell's current incarceration for manufacturing methamphetamine as well as his prior arrests and convictions related to drugs and providing the police with false information. Appellant denied that any of the methamphetamine-related materials were his or that he ever agreed to manufacture methamphetamine with Gowell.
The trial court included 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 5.07 (1999), in its instructions to the jury. That instruction stated:
First, the Defendant conspired with another to commit the crime of controlled substance crime in the first degree – manufacture of methamphetamine. A person conspires with another when he agrees with the other to commit a crime.
Second, the Defendant or another party to the conspiracy did one of the overt acts alleged, and did so with the purpose of furthering the conspiracy. The overt acts alleged in this case are:
1. Preparation of precursor chemicals and equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine,
2. Secreting of lab equipment and anhydrous ammonia and tanks in case of a search by law enforcement,
3. Provision
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|