SERIES 2300 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
F 2330 NOTES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 2330 Note 1 Manufacturing A Controlled Substance—CALCRIM Cross-References And Research Notes
F 2330 Note 2 Drug Manufacturing: Definition Of Manufacture (HS 11379.6)
F 2330 Note 3 Drug Manufacturing False Statements Insufficient To Support Missing Elements (HS 11379.6)
F 2330 Note 4 Intermediate Stages Sufficient For Aiding And Abetting Of Drug Manufacturing
F 2330 Note 5 Controlled Substance In HS 11054(f) Need Not Have A Stimulant Effect
Return to Series 2300 Table of Contents.
F 2330 Note 1 Manufacturing A Controlled Substance—CALCRIM Cross-References And Research Notes
CALCRIM Cross-References:
CALCRIM 2331 [Offering to Manufacture a Controlled Substance]
CALCRIM 2335 [Possession With Intent to Manufacture Methamphetamine or Nethylamphetamine]
CALCRIM 2336 [Possession With Intent to Manufacture PCP]
CALCRIM 2337 [Possession With Intent to Manufacture Methamphetamine]
CALCRIM 2338 [Possession of Isomers or Precursors With Intent to Manufacture Controlled Substance]
Research Notes:
See CLARAWEB Forum, Controlled Substances—Series 2300.
F 2330 Note 2 Drug Manufacturing: Definition Of Manufacture (HS 11379.6)
HS 11379.9 contains no definition of “manufacture”; however, the term was not meant to connote a word of art having a meaning apart from that attributed to it in general usage. (See People v. Combs (1985) 165 CA3d 422, 427.) The dictionary definition of “manufacture” is “the making of goods and articles by hand, or esp. by machinery.” Webster’s New World Dict. (2d College Ed.) 1970, p. 864. In a similar context, HS 11674 defines “manufacture” to mean (among other things) “… the production, preparation, compounding, processing, … of an imitation controlled substance.”
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 12.09.1 n2.
F 2330 Note 3 Drug Manufacturing False Statements Insufficient To Support Missing Elements (HS 11379.6)
In People v. Jenkins (1979) 91 CA3d 579, a possession-with-intent-to-manufacture-controlled substances case, the court held the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions. The fingerprint evidence furnished no evidence of possession, actual or constructive, knowledge of intent to manufacture, and the defendant’s falsehoods, even if admissible as indicating a consciousness of guilt, were insufficient to support the missing elements. Even though the falsehoods were admissible as indicating a consciousness of guilt, there were many other plausible reasons why a defendant may utter falsehoods. “Technically, the probative force of the falsehood is diluted by the fact that there is really no showing at all that defendant was even aware of the specific elements of the fairly uncommon offenses with which he was charged.” (Jenkins at 586; see also People v. Blakeslee (1969) 2 CA3d 831, 839; U.S. v. Howard (9th Cir. 1971) 445 F2d 821, 823.)
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 12.09.1 n4.
F 2330 Note 4 Intermediate Stages Sufficient For Aiding And Abetting Of Drug Manufacturing
People v. Heath (1998) 66 CA4th 697 held that aiding and abetting liability may be premised upon assistance which occurs during the intermediate stages of manufacture even though those stages were completed before the assistance was rendered. The court reasoned that manufacturing is an ongoing offense which remains “in progress” once the initial steps have been set in motion even when no active manipulation of the manufacturing apparatus is taking place. In so doing, the court approved the following instruction: “The conduct proscribed by Health & Safety Code section 11379.6 encompasses the initial and intermediate steps carried out to manufacture, produce or process a controlled substance.” (Heath, 66 CA4th at 703.)
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 12.09.1 n6.
F 2330 Note 5 Controlled Substance In HS 11054(f) Need Not Have A Stimulant Effect
(See FORECITE F 12.00 n11.)
