concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part">THOMPSON, Judge,

concurring in part, dissenting in part.

¶ 16 I conclude that possession of equipment or chemicals is not a necessarily included offense of manufacture of a dangerous drug and therefore dissent from the majori-tjds holding to the contrary. I concur in the rest of the majority opinion.

¶ 17 An offense is a constituent part of a greater offense if the lesser offense is composed solely of some, but not all, of the elements of the greater. State v. Hurley, 197 Ariz. 400, 403, 4 P.3d 455, 458 (App.2000) (citations omitted). The crime of possessing equipment or chemicals includes elements which are not present in the greater offense. These elements are “possession,” “equipment or chemicals,” and “purpose.”

¶ 18 To “possess” is to knowingly have physical possession or otherwise exercise dominion or control over property. A.R.S. § 13-105(30). There is no element of possession in the drug manufacturing offense. There is no element of the greater offense that requires the use of “equipment or chemicals.” Indeed, the statutory definition of “manufacture” includes the mere mixing of natural substances. A.R.S. § 13-3401(17). And section 13-3407(A)(3) requires an intentional mental state, as it prohibits the knowing possession of equipment or chemicals for the “purpose” of drug manufacture. “Purpose” means an “intended or desired result.” The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (2d ed.1987). The greater offense of drug manufacture merely requires the state of mind “knowingly.” A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(4).

¶ 19 The majority holding is apparently based on the assertion that, considering the usual practices of drug manufacturers, one cannot make methamphetamine without using chemicals or equipment. But this premise does not reflect the comparison of statutory elements which is the proper inquiry here. I would affirm the three convictions challenged on appeal.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress