Criminal Practice – Meth Production – Evidence – First Impression – NPLEx Database – Business Records – Police Officer’s Testimony – Meth Yield

South Carolina has not addressed whether logs from the National Precursor Log Exchange (NPLEx, an electronic database housing all pseudoephedrine purchases in 29 states) meet the business records exception to the rule against hearsay. Since the NPLEx records are created to comply with state statutes, not to investigate a specific case or individual, NPLEx logs are not created for litigation purposes, and they fall under the business record exception to hearsay.

We affirm defendant’s conviction of trafficking methamphetamine in the amount of 28 grams or more but less than 100 grams.

NPLEx Logs

We agree with the many jurisdictions which have considered this issue, and we find NPLEx logs are not created for litigation purposes and are admissible under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay. The records custodian for the NPLEx database testified that all South Carolina pharmacies were required to report to NPLEx starting on January 1, 2011.

The NPLEx records were created to comply with state statutes, not to investigate a specific case or individual. Thus, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the NPLEx records fall under the business record exception to hearsay.

Foundation

Three pharmacists, whose stores sold pseudoephedrine to defendant or people who bought pseudoephedrine for defendant, testified about their stores’ reporting of sales to the NPLEx system. The records custodian of the NPLEx logs also testified about the procedures used in compiling the NPLEx database. The state thus laid an adequate foundation for admission of the NPLEx logs into evidence.

Expertise

South Carolina has not discussed the expertise required to testify about the yield of methamphetamine from pseudoephedrine. In this case a police captain testified about his education and DEA certification with regard to the production of methamphetamine. He indicated he had been trained in the various methods for making methamphetamine and in how to determine the yield of methamphetamine from the amount of precursor elements.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying the captain as an expert and allowing him to testify as to the possible yield of methamphetamine from the pseudoephedrine available. The captain had more knowledge about manufacturing methamphetamine and calculating methamphetamine yield than the jury would have as common knowledge, and his testimony assisted the jury in understanding how methamphetamine labs operate. This is all that Rule 702, SCRE, requires.

Directed Verdict

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the state, the state presented evidence from which the jury could find defendant manufactured or attempted to manufacture more than 28 grams of methamphetamine. Many witnesses testified defendant and his then-girlfriend Cynthia Greenfield gave them methamphetamine in return for pseudoephedrine. Accordingly, the records contain evidence they were able to actually produce methamphetamine. Further, witnesses testified one of the reasons defendant and Greenfield started manufacturing methamphetamine was because they believed they could produce it at a lesser cost than buying it.

The police captain testified the worst-case scenario yield was 40 percent. Applying a 40-percent yield to the amount of pseudoephedrine defendant and Greenfield were given, according to the testimony the state presented, the amount of grams of methamphetamine would be over 28 grams.

While the captain’s testimony indicates a person attempting to make methamphetamine could end up with no methamphetamine due to flash fire, that person would still have been attempting to produce some amount of methamphetamine. Here, many witnesses testified that Mealor and Greenfield gave them methamphetamine after they had made it, demonstrating they were successful.

Although we do not have specific testimony that Greenfield or defendant was a “good cook,” we do have testimony they successfully produced methamphetamine. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s directed verdict motion.

Affirmed.

State v. Mealor (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-025-19, 30 pp.) (Aphrodite Konduros, J.) Appealed from the Circuit Court in Pickens County (Robin Stilwell, J.) Ryan Christopher Andrews and Robert Michael Dudek for appellant; Alan McCrory Wilson, Deborah Shupe and William Walter Wilkins for respondent. S.C. App.