WPC; ab^ b&;y;ޓ$-b^ -}QץiX>뿐~U@HhzUNґ$$(tɎ 5tXgWcAC*?2_Y. gP2(4ۖ4bGU^ĩY;k'ꤑ'6wpkdO@qB-U~ ^ISOxfm8L^P/IbR/rA3Dvqʲ!xLq!"U(ÜUy.p X%ey)$ыUKT-@8ӂª=y^>8c'WNKI4um KCCi !Ƚ'Tq' /CX+3ľDZ2zdO&>7w0MOӫ!'SwLS3Zշw "c'SAuc%y/fa$I+# UHN % 0: UN3UI> 1u 724^ fwr4v mN 0U 0  0 0 0p 0) 0 0 00 0 0^ 0 E 0 0 0J 0 0 0$ 0 0{ 0L 0 0 0F 0 0 0M! 0> " 0I" 0A# 0#$ 0$ 0_% 0A& 0#' 0( 0( 0|) 06* 02+ 0:+ 0:6, 0Yp, 0_, 0 (- 02. 0/ B*1 D/1 D+2 0>2 D/D4 0s4 06A5 0w5 0:6 0^6 0<7U6S7U*78777777777 B:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1e;;;;;;; m;HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman Regular\  `&Times New Roman3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)b1 h_B0CCA203|x U*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7A(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?L%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7B(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d@)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7D(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?L%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7B(X75+ ` hp x 5  @)2dxd0KS.SampleKK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial MAGNESSresentencingTiptonWedemeyerMcMinnvilleCapparellaYarbroughShelbyvilleCavanaughChisamQuanticoreweighT.C.A. TBIi Crim t]heFownerOnofreContrerasCrockpotunreactedU.S.C.C.A.N.NatlMarijaunaNORMLHruska UnifU.L.A.MongioveSevierSherrodU.S.S.G.LevayAlcornmuraticnonprecursorMahechaRestrepoCalero d#$()*/04 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.SDU_33 !USUS.,  _XGXXX   XXG8GXXdd8  @hh#XGXt#pXXGINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @gg$ATNASHVILLE#XGXp #XXGԈ #    @  @` July21,2004Session F #XGX# XXGSTATEOFTENNESSEEv.KEVINMAGNESS#XGXZ#  ? @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforWarrenCounty  9 @@No.F9129LarryB.Stanley,Jr.,Judge  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200302990CCAR3CDFiledSeptember28,_2004_   AV) ` dE<]` A ^     AWarrenCountyCircuitCourtjuryconvictedthedefendant,KevinMagness,ofmanufacturing V  morethanonehundredgramsofmethamphetamine,aClassBfelony,andthetrialcourtsentenced ? himasaRangeI,standardoffendertoeightyearsinconfinement.Thedefendantappeals,claiming (x that(1)theevidenceisinsufficienttosupporthisconviction,and(2)thetrialcourterredbyallowing a intoevidencethemannerbywhichthestatecalculatedtheweightofthesubstancecontaining J methamphetamine. S#XxXXXG=#XxXXXxWeholdthat%  #XxXXXxj#%XxXXXxtheevidenceissufficienttoshowfeloniousmanufacturingbutthat 3 anincorrectstandardwasusedtocalculatetheweightofthecontrolledsubstance.Wemodifythe  defendantsconvictiontoreflectaconvictionforaClassCfelony,andweremandthecasetothe  trialcourtforresentencing.#XxXXXx# SXXx  # #$#XGX$ # Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtModified, q CaseRemanded  [   JosephM.Tipton,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichNormaMcGeeOgleand .~ RobertW.Wedemeyer,JJ.,joined. g StevenR.Roller,McMinnville,Tennessee,andDonaldCapparella,Nashville,Tennessee,forthe  9  appellant,KevinMagness. !"! PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;HelenaWaltonYarbrough,AssistantAttorney ## General;ClementDalePotter,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andLarryG.Bryant,AssistantDistrict $$ AttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. v% %  @@OO& OPINION  H'"'     ThiscaserelatestothedefendantsmanufacturingmethamphetamineonJune12,2002.At )k$) trial,WarrenCountySheriffsDeputyStewartCaldwelltestifiedthathereceivedatipthatthe *T%* defendantwasoperatingamethamphetaminelaboratory( methlab)athishouseonOld *=&+ ShelbyvilleRoad.HesaidthatheandWarrenCountySheriffsDeputyKevinMurphydecidedto +&', investigatebydrivingtothedefendantshouse.DeputyCaldwelltestifiedthattheydroveintothe ,(- defendantsdriveway,parked,andapproachedthehouse.Hesaidthedefendantcameoutofhis -(. _houseandaskedthemwhytheywerethere.DeputyCaldwellsaidheexplainedtothedefendantthat  hehadreceivedinformationthatsomeoneatthedefendantsaddresswasmanufacturing  methamphetamineandaskedthedefendantforpermissiontosearchthepremises.Hesaidthe  defendantconsentedtothesearch. k   DeputyCaldwelltestifiedthattheywenttothedefendantsbarnandbegantosearch.He =  saidhefounda largegarbagebagcontainingtrashfromamethlabassoonashebegantosearch. & v Hesaidthetrashconsistedof brakecleanerandcoffeefiltersthatwerestained.DeputyCaldwell  _ testifiedthattheystoppedthesearchuponfindingwhattheybelievedtobeevidenceofamethlab.  H   DeputyMurphytestifiedthatwhentheystoppedthesearch,headvisedthedefendantofhis    Mirandarightsandthat,upontheirrequest,thedefendantsignedaconsentformallowingthe   deputiestocontinuesearchingthebarn.DeputyMurphysaidthatafterthedefendantconsentedin   writing,otherlawenforcementofficersarrivedatthedefendantshometoconductthesearch.He   saidthatduringthesearch,hefoundlayeredliquidsofwhathebelievedtobeiodine. n    DeputyMurphytestifiedthathehadbeenresponsiblefortheevidencelogduringthesearch @ ofthebarn.Hesaidmanydifferentitemswerefoundduringthesearchwhichareusedinthe )y processofmanufacturingmethamphetamine.Hetestifiedthattheseitemsincluded(1)ajar b containingalayeredliquid,(2)twotwentyouncebottlescontaininglayeredliquids,(3)iodine K crystals,(4)RedDevillye,(5)arespirator,(6)ateajugcontainingredresidue,(7) several 4 matchbookswithstrikerpadsmissing,(8)stainedcoffeefilters,(9)achemicalsuit,(10)rubbing  alcohol,(11)cansofbrakecleaner,and(12)anexhaustsystem.Hetestifiedinmeticulousdetail  astohoweachoftheseitemsisusedinordertomanufacturemethamphetamine.    WarrenCountySheriffsDepartmentLieutenantJodyCavanaughtestifiedthatheobtained q asearchwarrantinordertosearchthedefendantshouseandthatthesearchofthehouserevealed Z overfourhundredeightydietandsinuspillscontainingpseudoephedrine,asubstancecriticalto C manufacturingmethamphetamine.LieutenantCavanaughalsoexplainedhowtheitemsdiscovered ,| inthebarnwereusedinthemethamphetaminemanufacturingprocess. e   WarrenCountySheriffsDeputyDanielChisamtestifiedthathewasinvolvedinthe  7 investigationofthedefendantsbarn.Hesaidhehadreceivedmethlabinvestigationand !   interdictiontrainingfromtheDrugEnforcementAdministrationataweeklongprogramin " ! Quantico,Virginia.Hesaidthatasaresultofthisenhancedtraining,hewascertifiedtoinvestigate #"  clandestinemethlabs.Healsotestifiedastohowtheitemsdiscoveredinthebarnandinthe $# houseareusedinthemethamphetaminemanufacturingprocess.Oncrossexamination,Deputy t% $ Chisamconcededthatonlyoneofthethreebottlesfoundinthebarntestedpositivefor ]&!% methamphetamineandthatthebottlewhichdidtestpositivelackedonestepfrombeingcompleted F'"& inorderforthedrugtobecapableofbeingconsumed.DeputyChisamsaidthelayeredbottlewould /(#' haveto begassedoff,usingmuraticacidorsalt.Heexplained, Whatthisgasdoesisevaporate )h$( thebrakecleanerandturntheliquidintoapowder.DeputyChisamalsoconcededthattherewas *Q%) nowayofknowingforcertainhowmuchmethamphetaminewouldresultafterthefinalstepwas *:&* completed,andthatuntilthefinalstepwascompleted,thedrugcouldnotbeingested. +#'+ Ї  DavidBrownoftheTennesseeBureauofInvestigation,ForensicServicesDivisiontestified  thathetestedthesubstancessenttohimbytheWarrenCountySheriffsDepartment.AgentBrown  saidthatthetestingrevealedoneofthesubstancescontainedmethamphetamineandthatthetotal  weightofthesubstancecontainingmethamphetaminewas101.1grams.Oncrossexamination, k AgentBrownacknowledgedthesubstancecontainingmethamphetaminewasnotconsumableuntil T thebrakecleanerwasremoved. =    Thedefendanttestifiedthathehadmademethamphetamineinthepastforhisownpersonal  _ usebecausehedidnotwanttodiefromusingmethamphetaminemanufacturedbysomeoneelse.  H Hesaidthathewasnotcurrentlyusingormakingmethamphetamineandthattheitemsrecovered  1  fromhisbarnwereeitherrelatedtohisworkortheywere fromotherpeopledoingit.The    defendantdeniedevermakingmethamphetamineinhisbarn,andhesaidhedidnotknowhowthe   substancecontainingmethamphetaminegotintohisbarn.     Thejuryconvictedthedefendantofmanufacturingmethamphetamineoveronehundred n  grams.Afterfindingnoapplicableenhancementfactors,thetrialcourtsentencedthedefendantto W  atermofeightyearsintheDepartmentofCorrection,thepresumptiveminimumsentencefora @ RangeI,standardoffenderconvictedofaClassBfelony. )y   I.SUFFICIENCYOFTHEEVIDENCE K      Thedefendantclaimsthattheevidenceisinsufficienttosupporthisconviction.Specifically,  hearguesthatthestatefailedtoprovethatheintendedtosellordeliverthemethamphetamine.The  defendantarguesthattheonlyevidencebeforethejurywashisadmissiontohavingmade  methamphetamineforhisownpersonaluseinthepastandthatevenifthejurydidnotbelievehim,  thestatefailedtoprovehewasguiltyofanythingotherthanmakingmethamphetamineforhisown s use. \   Ourstandardofreviewwhenthedefendantquestionsthesufficiencyoftheevidenceon .~ appealis whether,afterviewingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletotheprosecution,any g rationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofthecrimebeyondareasonable  P doubt.Jacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,319,99S.Ct.2781,2789(1979).Wedonotreweigh  9 theevidence;rather,wepresumethatthejuryhasresolvedallconflictsinthetestimonyanddrawn !"  allreasonableinferencesfromtheevidenceinfavorofthestate.SeeStatev.Sheffield,676S.W.2d " ! 542,547(Tenn.1984);Statev.Cabbage,571S.W.2d832,835(Tenn.1978).InTennessee, #" questionsaboutwitnesscredibilityareresolvedbythejury.SeeStatev.Bland,958S.W.2d651, $# 659(Tenn.1997). v% $   Aconvictionformanufactureofmethamphetamineoveronehundredgramsrequiresproof H'"& thatthedefendantknowinglymanufacturedthesubstance.SeeT.C.A.3917417(a)(1)(2003). 1(#'  Manufactureisdefinedas )j$( 8  8`   theproduction,preparation,propagation,compounding,conversion *<&* orprocessingofacontrolledsubstance,eitherdirectlyorindirectly +%'+ byextractionfromsubstancesofnaturalorigin,orindependentlyby  meansofchemicalsynthesis,...exceptthat manufacturedoesnot  includethepreparationorcompoundingofacontrolledsubstanceby  anindividualfortheindividualsownuse....k` x` x Id.at3917402(14). =    Thedefendantarguesthatthestatefailedtoprovetheelementofmanufacturebecausethere  _ wasnoevidenceintroducedattrialthatwouldprovethemanufactureofthemethamphetaminewas  H notforthedefendantsownuse.However,thedefendantismistakenastowhohastheburdenof  1  proofregardingthisexception.TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection5311410(a)provides,    Ѐ#XxXXXG #XxXXXx   8  8`   Itisnotnecessaryforthestatetonegateanyexemptionorexception   inparts3and4ofthischapterortitle39,chapter17,part4,inany   complaint,information,indictmentorotherpleadingorinanytrial, n  hearingorotherproceedingunderparts3and4ofthischapterortitle W  39,chapter17,part4.Theburdenofproofofanyexemptionor @ exceptionisuponthepersonclaimingit.)y` x` x Ѐ#XxXXXxp5#XxXXXx b #XxXXXx8#XxXXXx(Emphasisadded).Pursuanttosection5311410(a),thedefendanthadtheburdentoprovethe K exceptionasstatedinsection#XxXXXxW8#XGXXXx3917402(14)#XxXXXG+9#XxXXXx. 4   Inthelightmostfavorabletothestate,DeputiesMurphyandChisam,Lieutenant  Cavanaugh,andAgentBrowntestifiedthattheitemsfoundatthedefendantshouseandbarn,such  asiodine,crystals,anexhaustsystem,respirator,andchemicalprotectionsuit,wereconsistentwith  amethlab.DeputyChisamandAgentBrowntestifiedthatoneoftheplasticbottlescontaininga q layeredliquidtestedpositiveformethamphetamine.Whilethedefendanttestifiedthathehadonly Z manufacturedmethamphetamineforhisownpersonaluse,thejuryobviouslychosenottobelieve C him.Becausethedeterminationofthedefendantscredibilitywassolelyajuryquestion,thisissue ,| iswithoutmerit. e   II.WEIGHINGASUBSTANCECONTAININGMETHAMPHETAMINE  7      Thedefendantclaimsthatthetrialcourterredbyallowingthestatetoadmitintoevidence " ! theweightofthesubstancecontainingmethamphetamineas101.1grams.Heclaimsthiswaserror #" becausebrakecleanerwasincludedwiththemethamphetamineinthesubstancewhichTBIAgent $# Browntested.Thedefendantarguesthatthisimpermissiblyincreasedtheweightofthesubstance v% $ containingmethamphetaminebecauseitrenderedthesubstanceunmarketableandrequeststhis _&!% courttoapplythe marketorientedapproachtoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3917417in H'"& ordertodeterminetheweightofasubstancecontainingmethamphetamine.Thedefendantclaims 1(#' thatthisissuepresentsaquestionoffirstimpressioninTennessee. )j$(   Thestatehasurgedthatwelooktotheplainmeaningofthestatute#XxXXXxz9#XxXXXxandconcludethatthe *<&* term substancecontainingappliestothemixtureofbrakecleanerandmethamphetamine.The +%'+ statuteprovidesthatapersonwhoknowinglymanufactures onehundredgramsormoreofany  substancecontainingamphetamineormethamphetamineisguiltyofaClassBfelony.T.C.A.  3917417(i)(10)(emphasisadded).Thestatearguestheplainmeaningofthissectionallowsitto  includeinitscalculationtheweightofthebrakecleanerfluid,providedthatadetectableamountof k methamphetamineispresent. T #XxXXXxA#XxXXXx  Abasicprincipleofstatutoryconstructionistoascertainandgiveeffecttolegislativeintent & v withoutundulyrestrictingorexpandingtheintendedscopeofastatute.Parksv.TennesseeMun.  _ LeagueRiskManagementPool,#XxXXXxD#XxXXXxԀ974S.W.2d677,679(Tenn.1998)(citing#XxXXXxE#XxXXXxԀOwensv.State,908  H S.W.2d923,926(Tenn.1995)).However,ifthestatutorylanguageisambiguous courtsmustlook  1  tothestatutoryschemeasawhole,aswellaslegislativehistory,todiscernitsmeaning.Parks,974    S.W.2dat679(citingOwens,908S.W.2dat926).Iftheplainmeaningofastatuteisappliedin   specificsituationssoastoproduceanabsurdorincongruousresult,theintentoftheGeneral   Assemblywillprevailoverthestatutorylanguage.SeeBarnettv.Barnett,#XxXXXxTF#XxXXXx27S.W.3d904,909   (Tenn.2000)(citing#XxXXXxI#XxXXXxԀBusinessBrokerageCtr.v.Dixon,874S.W.2d1,5(Tenn.1994)).#XxXXXxI#XxXXXx n    Whenthefairimportofthelanguageofapenalstatute,inthecontextofthelegislative @ historyandcaselawonthesubject,stillresultsinambiguity,theruleofstrictconstructionwould )y applytolimitthestatutesapplicationtothosepersonsorcircumstancesclearlydescribedbythe b statute.Statev.Horton,880S.W.2d732,735(Tenn.Crim.App.1994).#XxXXXxJ#XxXXXxInotherwords, [t]herule K oflenityisatie-breakerwhenthereisanotherwise-unresolvedambiguity.UnitedStatesv.White, 4 888F.2d490,497(7thCir.1989).Thisruleismorethanoneofconvenience.Theapplicationof  strictconstructionbywhichambiguitiesinapenalstatuteareconstruedinfavoroflenity isrooted  infundamentalprinciplesofdueprocesswhichmandatethatnoindividualbeforcedtospeculate  ...whetherhisconductisprohibited.Dunnv.UnitedStates,442U.S.100,112,99S.Ct.2190,  2197(1979);accordStatev.Richmond,100S.W.2d1,3(Tenn.1937). q   #XxXXXx4L#XxXXXxWebeginourstatutoryinterpretationbylookingtothedefinitionofthewords substance C containinginordertodeterminewhethertheplainmeaningofthatphraseallowedthestateto ,| weighthemethamphetaminealongwiththebrakecleaner. Substanceisdefinedas physical e materialwhichhasdiscreteexistenceor matterofadefinitechemicalcomposition.Websters N CollegiateDictionary1174(10thed.1996). Containisdefinedas toholdtogether,holdin, to  7 keepwithinlimits,or tohavewithin.Id.at249.#XxXXXxO#XxXXXx !     Whilethestatecontendsthestatutorylanguage substancecontainingisplainand #" unambiguous,wenotethatfederalcourtsinterpretingtheidenticalphrasecodifiedintheFederal $# ComprehensiveDrugAbusePreventionandControlActfailedtoachieveaconsensusonthisvery t% $ issue.SeeFownerv.UnitedStates,certdenied,504U.S.933,112S.Ct.1998(1992)(White,J., ]&!% dissenting)(recognizingthecircuitsplitontheinterpretationof substancecontaining).For F'"& example,inUnitedStatesv.MahechaOnofre,936F.2d623(1stCir.1991),anairlinepassenger /(#' wasarrestedatanairportafterasearchrevealedthathisbriefcasesacryliclininghadcocaine )h$( chemicallyattachedtoit.Thetrialcourtweighedtheentirebriefcaseminusitsmetalpartsin *Q%) arrivingattheappropriatesentence.Onappeal,thefirstcircuitheldthattheplainmeaningofthe *:&* phrase substancecontainingjustifiedthetrialcourtinweighingtheentiresuitcasealongwiththe +#'+ cocaineinordertocalculatethedefendantssentenceundertheFederalSentencingGuidelines.936  F.2dat62426;accordUnitedStatesv.RestrepoContreras,#XxXXXxR#XxXXXxԀ942F.2d96(1stCir.1991)(holdingthe  entireweightofastatuemadeofcocaineandbeeswaxcouldbeincludedforsentencing).#XxXXXxuX#XxXXXxԀOnthe  otherhand,inUnitedStatesv.Jennings,945F.2d129#XxXXXxLY#XxXXXx,#XxXXXxY#XxXXXx13637(6thCir.1991),thecourtheldthat k  #XxXXXx+Z#XxXXXxinterpretingthestatutetorequiretheinclusionoftheentirecontentsoftheCrockpot[containing T methamphetamineandunreactedpoisonouschemicals]forsentencing...wouldbothproducean =  illogicalresultandbecontrarytothelegislativeintentunderlyingthestatute.945F.2dat136 & v (citingGriffinv.OceanicContractors,Inc.,#XxXXXxZ#XxXXXxԀ458U.S.564,575,102S.Ct.3245,3252(1982)).  _ #XxXXXx\#XxXXXx#XxXXXx]#XxXXXx  AlthoughthestatebelievesthatthelanguageinT.C.A.3917417isclearand  1  unambiguous,wenotethatthephrase substancecontainingwassufficientlyambiguoustocreate    asplitofauthorityamongthefederalappellatecourts.WeagreewiththeJenningscourtand   believethatthestatesliteralinterpretationapproachtothephrase substancecontainingcould   produceillogicalandabsurdresults.Weconcludethatinordertoanswerthequestionoftheproper   methodforweighinga substancecontainingmethamphetamine,wemustlooktotheprocessby n  whichourstatehasenacted,modified,andamendedthe TennesseeDrugControlActrelativeto W  changesinfederaldruglaws.#XxXXXxZ]#XxXXXx @   In1970,CongresspassedtheComprehensiveDrugAbusePreventionandControl#XxXXXxa#XxXXXxAct,a b statutedesignedtorationalizefederaldruglaws.SeePub.L.91513,TitleII,401(1970);1970 K U.S.C.C.A.N.4566;accordTheNatlOrg.fortheReformofMarijaunaLaws(NORML)v.#XxXXXxa#XxXXXxDrug 4 EnforcementAdmin.,559F.2d735,737(D.C.Cir.1977).Thelegislativehistoryoftheact  indicatesthatCongressintendedtolimitcommercialtraffickinginnarcotics.SeeCaleroToledo  v.PearsonYachtLeasingCo.,416U.S.663,688,94S.Ct.2080,2094(1974);116Cong.Rec.1665  (1970)(remarksbySenatorHruska)#XxXXXxc#XxXXXx.  #XxXXXxd#XxXXXx  In1971,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblypassedtheTennesseeDrugControlAct to Z provideforacomprehensivesystemofdrugabusecontrolforTennessee.1971Tenn.Pub.Acts C ch.163.ThelegislationpassedbytheGeneralAssemblywasmodeledontheUniformControlled ,| SubstancesActwhichwasdraftedinorder toachieveuniformitybetweenthelawsoftheseveral e statesandthoseofthefederalgovernment.Unif.ControlledSubstancesAct,9(PartII)U.L.A.2. N ComparePub.L.91513,TitleII,401,with1971Tenn.Pub.Act.ch.163.  7 Ѐ  In1984,1986,and1988,CongressamendedtheDrugAbusePreventionandControlActof " ! 1970.Pub.L.98473,TitleII,224(a),502,503(b)(1),(2)(1984);Pub.L.99570,TitleI, #" 1002,1003(a),1004(a),1005(a),1103(1986);Pub.L.100690,TitleVI,6055,6254(h),6452(a), $# 6470(g),(h),6479(1988).Theseamendmentsfocusedonensuringthatfederaldruglawswould t% $ imposepenaltiesbasedupontheseriousnessoftheoffense,reservingthemostseriouspenaltiesfor ]&!% thosewhowerecommercialtraffickersoflargequantitiesofillegaldrugs.In1989,Tennesseealso F'"& reformeditscriminallaws,includingtheDrugControlAct,topunishoffendersmoreuniformly /(#' basedupontheseriousnessoftheoffense.See1989Tenn.Pub.Acts.ch.591,at125479. )h$(   Inthe1989act,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblyprovidedthatifanycontrolledsubstance *:&* was designated,rescheduled,ordeletedasacontrolledsubstanceunderfederallaw...,the +#'+ commissioner,uponagreementofthecommissionerofhealth,shallsimilarlycontrolthesubstance  underTennesseelaw.T.C.A.3917403;1989Tenn.Pub.Acts.ch591,at125758.Moreover,  thiscourthasnotedthatTennesseesDrugControlAct wasenactedtocompliment...federallaws  regardingdrugcontrol....Statev.FrankMongiove,No.115,SevierCounty,slipop.at12(Tenn. k Crim.App.Jan.31,1991);seealsoHughesv.DepartmentofSafety,776S.W.2d111(Tenn.Ct. T App.1989)(notingthatthe1986amendmentoftheGeneralAssembly intendedto...makethe =  statelawthesameasthefederal[drug]forfeiturestatutes). & v   Currently,therelevantTennesseeandfederalstatutescontainidenticallanguagefor  H determiningthemethodbywhichtrialcourtsaretoweighmethamphetamine,usingthephrase  1   substancecontaining...methamphetamine.Cf.21U.S.C.A.841(b)(1)(A)(viii)(proscribing    penaltiesfor 500gramsormoreofamixtureorsubstancecontainingadetectableamountof   methamphetamine,itssalts,isomers,orsaltsofitsisomers)(emphasisadded);T.C.A.3917   417(i)(10),(j)(10)(proscribingpenaltiesforrespectively100and1000gramsormoreof any   substancecontainingamphetamineormethamphetamineoranysaltoropticalisomerof n  amphetamineormethamphetamine)(emphasisadded).ConcludingthatTennesseesillegaldrug W  lawswereenactedtomirrortheFederalComprehensiveDrugAbusePreventionandControlAct @ of1970,welooktohowCongressandthefederalcourtshaveresolvedtheissuepresentedbythe )y defendant.#XxXXXxDe#XxXXXxԀ#XxXXXxt#XxXXXxԀ b #XxXXXx0u#XxXXXx  Chapmanv.UnitedStates,500U.S.453(1991),istheseminalcaseconcerningthemethod 4 ofweighingsubstancescontainingillegaldrugsinordertodeterminetheappropriatepunishment  rangeforadefendantaccusedofviolatingfederaldruglaws.InChapman,theSupremeCourtheld  thatthepropermethodforweighinglysergicaciddiethylamide( LSD)madecommercially  marketablebyplacingsmallamountsofthedrugonacarriermedium,blotterpaper,wastoinclude  theblotterpaperwhenweighingthesubstance.TheCourtfocusedonthelegislativehistoryof q federalillegaldruglaws.TheCourtfirstnotedthatthe1984amendmentstotheFederal Z ComprehensiveDrugAbusePreventionandControlActwereenacted toprovideamorerational C penaltystructureforthemajordrugtraffickingoffenses.#XxXXXxu#XxXXXxԀTurningtothelegislativehistoryofthe ,| 1986amendments,theCourtfoundCongresshad adoptedamarketorientedapproachtopunish e drugtrafficking,underwhichthetotalquantityofwhatisdistributed,ratherthantheamountofpure N druginvolved,isusedtodeterminethelengthofthesentence.Inconcludingthatthetrialcourthad  7 properlyincludedtheweightoftheblotterpaperinaffixingthedefendantssentence,theCourtheld, !   #XxXXXxy#XxXXXx8  8`   Bymeasuringthequantityofthedrugsaccordingtothe street #" weightofthedrugsinthedilutedforminwhichtheyaresold,#XxXXXx3|#XxXXXxrather $# thanaccordingtothenetweightoftheactivecomponent,thestatute t% $ andtheSentencingGuidelinesincreasethepenaltyforpersonswho ]&!% possesslargequantitiesofdrugs,regardlessoftheirpurity.Thatisa F'"& rationalsentencingscheme./(#'` x` x Chapman,500U.S.at45965(citingH.R.Rep.No.99845,pt.1,pp.1112,17(1986)#XxXXXx0}#XxXXXx;S.Rep.No. *Q%) 98225,at255(1983),1984U.S.C.C.A.N.3182,3437). *:&*  +#'+ #XxXXXx1#XxXXXx  ThelowerfederalcourtsapplyingChapmansplitontheissuepresentedforreviewinthis  case;namely,whethertrialcourtsshouldalsoincludetoxicsubstancesandsubstancesthathaveto  beremovedfromamixturebeforetheillegaldrugcanbesoldormarketed.InJennings,supra,the  sixthcircuitappliedthe marketorientedapproachofChapman.ThedefendantinJenningswas k convictedofmanufacturingmethamphetamineover4000grams.Themethamphetamineseizedby T thegovernmentwascombinedwithunreactedchemicalsandhadnotcompletedthe cooking =  process.Thecourtnotedthatthemixtureor substancecontainingmethamphetaminecontained & v poisonoussubstanceswhichcouldnotbeingestedbypotentialmethamphetamineusers.Thecourt  _ focuseditsanalysisonthe marketorientedapproachandheldthatunreacted,poisonouschemicals  H couldnotbecombinedforpurposesofweighingthemethamphetaminebecausesuchasubstance  1  wasnotconsumableormarketable.#XxXXXx#XxXXXx945F.2d129,#XxXXXx#XxXXXxԀ#XxXXXxg#XxXXXx13637(6thCir.1991).      However,thefifthcircuitinUnitedStatesv.Sherrod,964F.2d1501(5thCir.1992),arrived   atacontraryresult.InSherrod,thedefendantwasconvictedofmanufactureofmethamphetamine   inexcessofonekilogram.Thedefendantappealedclaimingthetrialcourterredbyallowingthe n  governmenttoweightheentiremixtureorsubstancecontainingmethamphetamine,whichwas W  foundinthreeseparatecontainerscombinedwithunreactedchemicals.Insustainingthedefendants @ convictionandresultingsentence,thefifthcircuitdistinguishedChapmanandstatedthatCongress )y didnotintendtoapplythe marketorientedapproachtomethamphetamine.Thecourtnoted b Congresshadtreatedmethamphetaminedifferentfromcocaineandheroinebyprovidingforvarying K weightamountsbaseduponwhetherthemethamphetaminewasinapureordilutedform.Thecourt 4 heldthatitwasproperforthetrialjudgetoweightheunreactedchemicalsandthe  methamphetaminetogetherinordertocalculatethedefendantssentenceundertheguidelines.964  F.2dat150910.    WedisagreewiththefifthcircuitsanalysisofChapman.TheSupremeCourtdistinguished  methamphetaminefromcocaineandheroineinChapmantobuttressitsargumentthatCongress q intendedcarrieragentsandmediumstobeincludedforpurposesofweighingcocaineandheroine. Z TheCourtcomparedthestatutorylanguageandconcludedthatbecauseCongresshadprovidedfor C differentweightsbaseduponpureordilutedformsofmethamphetamineandbecauseitdidnot ,| similarlydifferentiatebetweenpureanddilutedformsofcocaineandheroine,Congressintended e forcarrieragentsandmediumstobeincludedincalculatingtheweightofthosesubstances.Unlike N thefifthcircuit,webelievethisanalysissupportsthepropositionthatthesubstancemustbe  7 marketableorconsumableinordertoweighit. !     BeforetheSupremeCourtchosetoresolvethesplitamongthelowercourts,theSentencing #" GuidelineCommissionamendedsection2D1.1ofthefederalsentencingguidelinesentitled $#  ApplicationNotesasfollows: t% $ #XxXXXx#XxXXXx8  8`   #XxXXXx# XxXXXx 1. #XxXXXx# XxXXXxԀ Mixtureorsubstanceasusedinthisguidelinehasthesame ]&!% meaningasin21U.S.C.#XxXXXx;#XxXXXx#XxXXXx#XxXXXx841,exceptasexpresslyprovided. F'"& Mixtureorsubstancedoesnotincludematerialsthatmustbe /(#' separatedfromthecontrolledsubstancebeforethecontrolled )h$( substancecanbeused....Ifsuchmaterialcannotreadilybe *Q%)  separatedfromthemixtureorsubstancethatappropriatelyiscounted *:&* intheDrugQuantityTable,thecourtmayuseanyreasonablemethod  toapproximatetheweightofthemixtureorsubstancetobecounted.#XxXXXx5#XxXXXx` x` x  U.S.S.G#XxXXXx#XxXXXx.App.C.,Amend.484(1993).#XxXXXx #XxXXXxAftertheimplementationofAmendment484,thelower k federalcourtsbegantoapplythenew ApplicationNote,therebypreventingthegovernmentfrom T calculatingadefendantssentencebasedupon materialsthatmustbeseparatedfromthecontrolled =  substancebeforethecontrolledsubstancecanbeused.SeeUnitedStatesv.Levay,76F.3d671, & v 67374(5thCir.1996)(holdingpursuanttoAmendment484thatwastewaterandprecursor  _ chemicalscannotbeincludedwhencalculatingtheweightofanillegaldrugunderthefederal  H sentencingguidelines);accordUnitedStatesv.Stewart,361F.3d373,382(7thCir.2004)(holding  1   thatonlyusableorconsumablemixturesorsubstancescan#XxXXXx#XxXXXxԀbeusedindeterminingdrugquantity    under#XxXXXx)#XxXXXx#XxXXXx#XxXXXx841(b));UnitedStatesv.Sprague,#XxXXXx#XxXXXxԀ135F.3d1301,1306(9thCir.1998)(holdingthatunder   theguidelines,thegovernmentcannotincludetheweightofsubstancesthatmustberemovedbefore   thesolutioncontainingmethamphetaminecanbeconsumed).   #XxXXXx`#XxXXXx  WhilethemethodbywhichourGeneralAssemblyhasenacted,modified,andamendedthe W  TennesseeDrugControlActinrelationtofederaldruglawsprovidespersuasiveauthoritythatits @ intentwastofollowthemarketorientedapproach,wenotethatthiscourthasalreadyaddressedthis )y issue.InStatev.Ash#XxXXXx#XxXXXx,729S.W.2d275(Tenn.Crim.App.1986),thedefendantwasconvicted of b possessionofasubstancecontainingmorethanfivegramsofLSD.Onappeal,thedefendant K contendedthatthephrase substancecontainingwasimpermissiblyvague.Thiscourt,inaffirming 4 theconvictionstated,  8  8`   GiventhenatureofthedrugLSD,itisnecessarythatthestatutenot  requireaparticularweightofthepuresubstance.LSDisrarely,if  ever,soldinthe streetmarketplaceinitspureform.Itisordinarily q soldintablets,ondotsofpaper,oronsomeotheragent.Thedosage Z ismeasuredinmicrograms.Thus,itwouldbeimpossibletodefine C withanyprecisiontheexactweightofpureLSDwhichconstitutes ,| criminalpossession.Rather,itistheweightofthesubstance(agent) e thatcanbedefined,andthelegislaturehasdonesointhestatute.N` x` x 729S.W.2dat280(emphasisadded).ThiscourtinStatev.Alcorn,741S.W.2d135(Tenn.Crim. !   App.1987),addressedanearlyidenticalissueinthecontextofcocainewhenthedefendantappealed " ! hisconvictionforpossessionofasubstancecontainingcocainethatwasonly32.1percentpure. #" ThiscourtcitedAshwithapprovalstating, Similarissueswereraisedin[Ashwhere]weconcluded $# thatgiventheusualformsinwhichthedrugismarketedandconsumed,thephraseanysubstance t% $ containingLSDreferstotheagentthatcontainsLSDaswellasthepureformofthedrug.... ]&!% Thedefendant,however,assertedthatthestatutewasimpermissiblyvaguebecause,heargued, F'"& cocainewouldalmostalwaysbe containedin,orenclosedby,someotherobject(abag,afruitjar, /(#' evenanautomobile)thatwouldexceedthestatutoryweight.#XxXXXxy#XxXXXxThiscourtrejectedthedefendants )h$( argumentstating, Thedefendant[]maynotrelyonpossibleapplicationsthatdidnotoccurinthis *Q%)  case....Moreover,ourconstructionofthestatutewouldseemtoprecludesuchpossibilities.This *:&* courtthenheldthata carriermediumcanbeincludedwiththepurecocainewhencalculatingthe  weightof anysubstancecontainingcocaine.741S.W.2d13738(emphasisadded).#XxXXXxn#XxXXXxԀ     WebelieveTennesseehasadopteda marketorientedapproach#XxXXXxŨ#XxXXXxԀbaseduponthiscourts k precedentsandthemethodbywhichourGeneralAssemblyhasmodifiedandamendedthe T TennesseeDrugControlActinrelationtofederaldruglaws.#XxXXXxx#ԀXxXXXxBaseduponAlcornandAsh,andthe =  ruleoflenity,weconcludethatthebrakecleanerseizedbythestatewasneitherconsumablenor & v marketableandthatthenonprecursor,toxicsubstanceusedinthemanufacturingprocesswas  _ impermissiblyweighedwiththemethamphetamine.#XxXXXx#XxXXXx  H #XxXXXx.#XxXXXx  Althoughtheevidencecannotsustaint#XxXXXx#XxXXXxhedefendantsconvictionforClassBfelony    manufactureofmethamphetamineover100grams,it#XxXXXx#XxXXXxissufficienttosupportaconvictionforClass   Cfelonymanufactureofmethamphetamine.WemodifythedefendantsconvictiontoaClassC   felonyandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforresentencing.#XxXXXx#XXx   #XxX##XxXXXx #XxXXXx#XxXXXx#XGXXXx   `     h     ___________________________________ )y    `     h     JOSEPHM.TIPTON,JUDGE#XxXXXGƯ#