ICJI 405

ICJI 405 MANUFACTURING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

In order for the defendant to be guilty of Manufacturing a Controlled Substance, the state must prove each of the following:

1. On or about [date]

2. in the state of Idaho

3. the defendant [name] manufactured [name of substance], and

4. the defendant either knew it was [name of substance] or believed it was a controlled substance.

If any of the above has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, must find the defendant not guilty. If each of the above has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty.

Comment

I.C. � 37-2732(a). If the defendant is charged with "second offense" drug manufacturing, IC � 37-2739, that issue should be presented in a bifurcated proceeding.

See ICJI 426 for the definition of "manufacture."

In State v. Fox, 124 Idaho 924, 866 P.2d 181 (1993), the Supreme Court held that IC � 37-2732(c) does not set forth any mental state as an element of the crime of possession of a controlled substance. "Thus, as [this statute] does not expressly require any mental element and IC � 18-114 only requires a general intent, we conclude that the offense only requires a general intent, that is, the knowledge that one is in possession of the substance." The Court held that the defendant's lack of knowledge that the substance was illegal (as a controlled substance) was irrelevant.

It was error for the verdict form, in combination with jury instruction for manufacturing, to fail to require a finding by the jury that the manufacturing was done knowingly. State v. Palmer, 138 Idaho 931, 71 P.3d 439 (Ct. App. 2003).

Revised: April 21, 2023