HIGH COURT RULES ON MAKING OF METH

FRANKFORT - A defendant charged with manufacturing methamphetamine must
have all the necessary equipment or ingredients, the Kentucky Supreme Court
said in a split decision yesterday.

A defendant who possessed some but not all of the equipment or chemicals
used in making the illegal drug could be prosecuted for criminal attempt,
provided there was evidence of intent, the court said.

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Joseph Lambert said offenders would
have to be caught "red-handed" under the majority interpretation, which he
called "excessively technical."

The court ordered a new trial for Ronald Kotila, who was convicted in
Pulaski County on a "meth" manufacturing charge in 1999. Because he also
had a gun when arrested, his sentence was enhanced to 25 years.

Kotila had possession of many of the items needed for a meth lab, all of
which are legal by themselves and commonly available: antihistamine
tablets, lithium batteries, cans of starting fluid, glass jars, rock salt,
a cooking pot and a wooden spoon, among other things.

However, Kotila did not have two essential ingredients: anhydrous ammonia
and muriatic acid. And the pertinent Kentucky statute specifies that a
suspect must possess "the chemicals or equipment for the manufacture of
methamphetamine."

"The presence of the article 'the' is significant because, grammatically
speaking, possession of some but not all of the chemicals or equipment does
not satisfy the statutory language," the court said in an unsigned opinion.

In a partial dissent, Lambert predicted that prosecuting meth manufacturing
cases will become nigh unto impossible.

A suspect "with the least amount of ingenuity will be able to prevent his
conviction by merely omitting from his cache of tools and ingredients one
or two of the more common, and bringing in the missing components only at
the last moment," Lambert wrote. "Thus to achieve a conviction ... it will
be necessary to catch the offender 'red-handed.'"

Justices William Graves, William Cooper, Martin Johnstone and Janet Stumbo
made up the majority. Justice James Keller dissented from part of the
ruling. Justice Donald Wintersheimer joined in Lambert's opinion.

In other cases, the court:

. Concluded that the governor's power to grant pardons under the Kentucky
Constitution includes partial or conditional pardons.

The ruling was from a Simpson County criminal case in which a juror with a
felony conviction on his record had some of his civil rights restored by
Gov. Paul Patton in 1997.

The court noted that Patton's order for James Stanley specifically restored
his rights to vote and hold public office. Nothing was said about jury service.

The Court of Appeals ruled that Patton's order restored Stanley to "full
and complete rights of citizenship." The Supreme Court disagreed. The
upshot of the ruling is that Terry Anderson, convicted of assault by the
jury that included Stanley, is to get a new trial in Simpson County Circuit
Court.

. Ordered a hearing to determine whether the state's subpoenas for records
of companies controlled by a New Jersey gadget promoter are actually
intended, as he claims, to gather evidence for a criminal case pending
against him.

The appeal was by Dennis Lee, sole shareholder of three companies that sell
"business opportunities" in various products, including a device that
supposedly produces free electricity.

The attorney general's office got Lee indicted after a pair of sales
seminars in Louisville last year. He was charged with violating the
Consumer Protection Act and failing to register his business. The Jefferson
County grand jury then began investigating Lee's companies.

Lee contends the grand jury is being used to gather evidence while
circumventing court rules of discovery that entitle him to know the
evidence against him.

A majority of the justices agreed there was "a serious question regarding
whether the investigative procedures of the grand jury are being used in an
improper fashion." They ordered the Jefferson County Circuit Court to
conduct a hearing on the issue. If Lee prevailed, the subpoenas would have
to be quashed, the ruling said.