## Facts

- Police executed a search warrant at the apartment shared by Chris Horsley and his roommate.
- Officers found a large quantity of marijuana, scales and other drug-related paraphernalia, and a device used for cooking plant material.
- The cooking device was turned on at the time of the search and contained plant material.
- A forensic chemist identified the material in the device as marijuana and testified that the device was used to process marijuana into hashish, a more concentrated and potent form of marijuana.
- Horsley and his roommate were charged with and convicted of manufacturing a controlled substance.
- On appeal, Horsley argued that turning marijuana into hashish did not constitute “manufacture” because the process did not create a new controlled substance; it only increased the potency of an existing one.

## Issues

1. Whether processing marijuana by cooking it into hashish (a more concentrated form of marijuana) constitutes “manufacture” of a controlled substance under the Utah Controlled Substances Act.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that the statutory definition of “manufacture” is broad and reaches “processing” conduct, including methods used to concentrate or extract active components from a substance of natural origin.
- The court rejected the argument that “manufacture” requires creation of a chemically new drug; transforming marijuana into hashish through a processing method can qualify even if the psychoactive component remains the same.
- A dissent would have required proof that the process produced a new or different controlled substance and would have found the evidence insufficient for manufacturing.

## Legal Principles

- When a controlled-substances statute defines “manufacture” to include “processing” (and related terms), the term can apply to conduct that converts a controlled substance into a more concentrated preparation.
- “Manufacture” under such a statute does not necessarily require proof that the defendant created a chemically distinct controlled substance; processing that concentrates the controlled material may be enough.
- Evidence that a defendant operated equipment actively converting marijuana plant material into hashish, supported by expert testimony explaining the process, can support a conviction for manufacturing a controlled substance.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court held that cooking marijuana to process it into hashish falls within the Utah Controlled Substances Act’s definition of “manufacture” because the statute reaches processing and extraction-type conduct, even when the end product remains marijuana in a more concentrated form; the court therefore affirmed Horsley’s manufacturing conviction.


Utah v. Horsley, 596 P.2d 661 (1979)