Howard Hill Anderson v. Commonwealth,
14-SC-153-MR (rendered 10/29/15) (not to be published).
The Court ordered a new
trial in Mr. Anderson’s case due to a non-unanimous jury instruction on
manufacturing methamphetamine. Mr. Anderson was indicted for manufacturing
methamphetamine at his home due to the possession of two or more chemicals or
two or more items of equipment.
The trial court had allowed his alleged
participation in an earlier manufacture [Drury incident] to be admitted as a
prior bad act. The court used a combination jury instruction that allowed
Mr. Anderson to be convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine by the making of
methamphetamine or by the possession of two or more chemicals or two or more
items of equipment. In closing argument, the prosecutor argued to the
jury they could convict Mr. Anderson for manufacturing methamphetamine at his
home or the Drury incident.
As the Court stated, “Up until this point in the
trial, the combination jury instruction employed by the trial court in this
case did not present a potential unanimous verdict problem. However, after the
June 30 event was recast as a possible corpus delicti of the crime
charged in the jury instructions, under the jury instruction and verdict form
provided, some jurors could have believed Appellant was guilty of manufacturing
methamphetamine by making meth at Drury's on June 30, while other jurors
believed Appellant was guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine only because he
possessed at his home on July 1 two or more of the chemicals or items of
equipment needed for making meth. The creation of this possibility runs afoul
of our well-delineated unanimous verdict rules.”
David Curlin of the Henderson office represented Mr. Anderson before the
McLean Circuit Court, and Emily Rhorer represented him on direct appeal
to the Kentucky Supreme Court.
