## Facts

- A deputy stopped a car driven by Roger Beaty for erratic weaving and detected a strong odor of anhydrous ammonia.
- Beaty appeared impaired, failed field sobriety tests, had a negative breath test, and refused blood or urine testing; he was arrested for DUI.
- During a search incident to arrest, officers found on Beaty’s person marijuana, cocaine, scales, and other drug paraphernalia.
- Officers also found marijuana and alcohol in the front seat and glove compartment.
- In the back seat and trunk, officers discovered numerous items associated with a methamphetamine lab, including containers of anhydrous ammonia, pseudoephedrine tablets, lithium batteries, and related equipment; the ammonia odor was pervasive, including from the trunk.
- The vehicle was owned by Pamela Kuhl; Beaty and his girlfriend (the passenger) testified they had borrowed it and did not know the methamphetamine-related materials were inside.
- Beaty sought to present evidence that Kuhl had a motive to frame the passenger (jealousy) and planted the methamphetamine-related items in the vehicle; the trial court excluded the evidence as speculative.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a prosecution witness to testify after untimely disclosure of the witness’s statement under RCr 7.26.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Beaty knowingly manufactured methamphetamine.
3. Whether the manufacturing-methamphetamine jury instruction was reversible error for failing to require a finding of scienter.
4. Whether exclusion of Beaty’s alternate-perpetrator evidence violated his constitutional right to present a defense.
5. Whether convicting Beaty of both manufacturing methamphetamine and first-degree possession of a controlled substance based on the same methamphetamine violated double jeopardy.
6. Whether the trial court erred by not resolving inconsistent jury sentencing verdicts on possession of drug paraphernalia (first vs. second offense).

## Decision

- Affirmed the convictions and sentences for DUI, trafficking in marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Held there was no reversible discovery error under RCr 7.26 because exclusion of a witness is an extreme remedy and Beaty did not show sufficient prejudice.
- Held the evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable inference that Beaty knew of the methamphetamine lab, based on the strong ammonia odor, lab components in the vehicle, and drugs/paraphernalia found on his person.
- Reversed the manufacturing-methamphetamine conviction because the jury instruction omitted the required mental-state element and the omission was not harmless where knowledge was contested.
- Reversed and remanded the methamphetamine-related convictions for a new trial because excluding the alternate-perpetrator evidence improperly prevented Beaty from presenting his defense.
- Held dual convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine and first-degree possession of the same methamphetamine violated double jeopardy and required correction on remand.
- Declined relief on the paraphernalia sentencing-verdict inconsistency because the issue was not preserved by a timely, specific objection.

## Legal Principles

- Sanctions for late disclosure under RCr 7.26 are committed to the trial court’s discretion; exclusion of a witness is disfavored absent demonstrated prejudice affecting the ability to cross-examine and avoid unfair surprise.
- Circumstantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, can support a finding of knowing participation in drug manufacturing.
- A jury instruction that omits an essential statutory element, including scienter, is reversible when the element is contested and the error is not harmless.
- Due process protects a defendant’s right to present a defense, including evidence that another person committed the offense, subject to ordinary evidentiary limits; exclusion of relevant, non-speculative alternate-perpetrator evidence may require a new trial.
- Double jeopardy bars multiple convictions when, as charged and proved, one offense does not require proof of a fact beyond the other; manufacturing and possession convictions based on the same controlled substance cannot both stand.

## Conclusion

The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed Beaty’s DUI, marijuana trafficking, and paraphernalia convictions, but ordered a new trial on the methamphetamine-related charges because the court improperly excluded alternate-perpetrator evidence, the manufacturing instruction omitted the required mental state, and the manufacturing-and-possession convictions raised double-jeopardy problems when based on the same methamphetamine.


Beaty v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 196 (Ky. 2003)