Summary
The Supreme Court of Washington held that the term "methamphetamine" in former RCW 69.50.401(a)(1)(ii) encompasses methamphetamine in both base and salt forms. The court affirmed the convictions of George Cromwell and Jennifer Reynolds-Cromwell for methamphetamine-related offenses. Justice Sanders dissented, reasoning that the statute distinguished methamphetamine from its salts and that the rule of lenity required reversal.
Holdings
- The plain language of former RCW 69.50.401(a)(1)(ii) encompasses all forms of methamphetamine, including methamphetamine in salt form.
Questions Presented
- Whether the term "methamphetamine" in former RCW 69.50.401(a)(1)(ii) includes methamphetamine salts, isomers, and salts of isomers.
- Whether the defendants' charging documents and convictions were improper because the State proved possession and delivery of methamphetamine in salt form rather than base methamphetamine.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (21)
- State v. J.P., 149 Wash. 2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318 (2003)(followed)
- State v. Keller, 143 Wash. 2d 267, 276, 19 P.3d 1030 (2001)(followed)
- State v. McDougal, 120 Wash. 2d 334, 350, 841 P.2d 1232 (1992)(followed)
- State v. Delgado, 148 Wash. 2d 723, 727, 63 P.3d 792 (2003)(distinguished)
- State v. Morris, 123 Wash. App. 467, 98 P.3d 513 (2004)(disapproved)
- State v. Halsten, 108 Wash. App. 759, 33 P.3d 751 (2001)(distinguished)
- State v. Jackson, 137 Wash. 2d 712, 725, 976 P.2d 1229 (1999)(distinguished)
- State v. Taylor, 97 Wash. 2d 724, 728, 649 P.2d 633 (1982)(discussed)
- New Castle Invs. v. City of LaCenter, 98 Wash. App. 224, 228, 989 P.2d 569 (1999)(discussed)
- State v. Van Woerden, 93 Wash. App. 110, 116, 967 P.2d 14 (1998)(discussed)
Showing top 10 of 21.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…