Count 2 Of The Criminal Complaint, Possession Of Equipment To Manufacture Methamphetamine

729 Words 3 Pages
IRAC of #2B

II. Count Two of the criminal complaint, possession of equipment to manufacture methamphetamine, should be dismissed on the ground that it is a lesser-included offense of Count Three, manufacture of methamphetamine ("meth").

The issue in the present case is whether §43: Possession of Equipment or Supplies with Intent to Manufacture Meth (“Possession of Equipment”) should be dismissed because it is a lesser-included offense of Count Three, §51: Manufacture of Meth. A defendant cannot be charged with the same crime twice, for that would be considered double jeopardy. In order for a court to determine "if one the count constitutes a lesser offense that is included in the other," courts will apply the "Strict Elements Test." Blockburger
…show more content…
The court in Decker held that the elements of Burglary were 1) knowingly; and 2) entered and remained unlawfully; and 3) in a building or occupied structure; and 4) with intent to cause bodily injury; and 4) causing serious bodily injury to that person. While the elements of assault are 1) intent to cause bodily injury; and 2) causing serious bodily injury to that person. The court in Decker found that because the elements of assault included the same elements of burglary, which the defendant was also charged with, he could not be convicted of both. …show more content…
Decker. While the greater charge of §51 Manufacturing of Meth does not include the third element (possession) of §43, Possession of Equipment, the charge does not have to contain the third element because the two offenses are so similarly situated in their elements. Also, committing the crime of §43 would automatically result in committing the crime of §51. Hence, charging McLain with both Counts constitutes multiplicitous

Related Documents