AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Defendant was arrested for shoplifting eight boxes of over-the-counter medications containing ephedrine. She admitted to intending to sell the medications, knowing the ephedrine would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. The Defendant was charged with trafficking (by manufacturing) and entered a conditional guilty plea to attempt to commit trafficking (by manufacturing) while reserving the right to appeal the charge (paras 1, 3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County: The Defendant was convicted of attempt to commit trafficking (by manufacturing) after entering a conditional guilty plea.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that she should have been charged with possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 30-31-25.1(B) instead of attempt to commit trafficking (by manufacturing) under Section 30-31-20(A)(1). She claimed that ephedrine qualifies as drug paraphernalia under Section 30-31-2(V) and that the general/specific rule required the State to charge her under the more specific statute (paras 1, 4, 11).
• State-Appellee: Contended that ephedrine does not meet the statutory definition of drug paraphernalia and that the general/specific rule does not apply because the statutes in question do not prohibit the same conduct. The State maintained that the charge of attempt to commit trafficking (by manufacturing) was appropriate (paras 5, 7, 12).

Legal Issues

• Does ephedrine qualify as drug paraphernalia under Section 30-31-2(V)?
• Does the general/specific rule require the Defendant to be charged under Section 30-31-25.1(B) instead of Section 30-31-20(A)(1)?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for attempt to commit trafficking (by manufacturing) (para 13).

Reasons

Per Pickard J. (Bustamante CJ. and Kennedy J. concurring):

• The Court held that ephedrine does not qualify as drug paraphernalia under Section 30-31-2(V). The statute's plain language and examples indicate that drug paraphernalia refers to tools and instruments used to prepare, package, or administer controlled substances, not the ingredients used to manufacture them. Ephedrine, as a drug precursor, is addressed separately in the Controlled Substances Act (paras 5-7).
• The Defendant's argument that her statements about the intended use of the ephedrine transformed it into drug paraphernalia was rejected. The Court reasoned that the statutory definition of drug paraphernalia cannot be altered by an individual's statements (para 8).
• The Court declined to follow the Kansas decision in State v. Frazier, which held that ephedrine is drug paraphernalia. The Court found that the Kansas court failed to analyze the statutory language and examples as a whole, as required under New Mexico law (para 9).
• The general/specific rule was deemed inapplicable because Section 30-31-25.1(B) (possession of drug paraphernalia) and Section 30-31-20(A)(1) (trafficking by manufacturing) do not prohibit the same conduct. Since ephedrine is not drug paraphernalia, the Defendant's conduct was not covered by Section 30-31-25.1(B) (paras 11-12).