24/7 call for a free consultation 212-300-5196

AS SEEN ON

EXPERIENCEDTop Rated

YOU MAY HAVE SEEN TODD SPODEK ON THE NETFLIX SHOW
INVENTING ANNA

When you’re facing a federal issue, you need an attorney whose going to be available 24/7 to help you get the results and outcome you need. The value of working with the Spodek Law Group is that we treat each and every client like a member of our family.

New Jersey Section 2C:35-27 – Permissive inference concerning possession of ephedrine products.

Understanding New Jersey’s Law on Possession of Ephedrine Products

New Jersey has strict laws regarding the possession of certain chemical compounds that can be used to manufacture methamphetamine. Specifically, Section 2C:35-27 of New Jersey law allows a permissive inference that someone possessing over 30 grams or 10 packages of ephedrine or related chemicals intends to use them to make meth.

This article will explain the details of the law, potential defenses, and implications for those facing charges.

Overview of the Law

New Jersey Section 2C:35-27 is part of the state’s overall controlled substances act. It was enacted in 2005 to help curb the rise of small-scale meth labs across the state by making it easier to prosecute those suspected of planning to manufacture the illegal stimulant drug.

The law states that possession of more than 30 grams or 10 packages of any drug containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine or their various optical isomers or salts, allows a “permissive inference” that the person intended to use the chemicals to produce methamphetamine. This means that while intent to produce meth is not automatically assumed, the large quantity of chemicals makes that conclusion reasonable enough that prosecutors can argue it to a jury.

Key Points About Permissive Inferences

A permissive inference is not the same as a mandatory presumption. With a permissive inference, the jury is allowed to conclude intent from the facts, but not required to do so see this analysis for more detail. The prosecution still has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the large quantity of ephedrine-type chemicals possessed makes it much easier for prosecutors to convince a jury that manufacturing meth was the likely purpose.

Potential defenses to charges under this law include:

  • Arguing the ephedrine was obtained legally and for a legitimate purpose like treating asthma or congestion. Records from a doctor or pharmacy may help demonstrate this.
  • Disputing whether the amount truly exceeded 30 grams / 10 packages. This may require expert chemical analysis.
  • Challenging if the substance seized qualitatively meets the definition under the law for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, etc. Again, expert testimony may be necessary.

Merely possessing a small amount, even knowing it could help make meth, is not enough to trigger the permissive inference under 2C:35-27. The prosecution has to definitively prove possession of over 30 grams or 10 packages as defined in the statute see analysis here.

Implications of a Conviction

Because of the permissive inference allowed by this law, it can be easier for prosecutors to obtain convictions if the quantitative thresholds are met. The potential penalties for breaking 2C:35-27 depend on the exact nature of charges filed, which may include:

  • Possession of methamphetamine precursors (ephedrine products). This is a 3rd degree crime punishable by 3-5 years imprisonment and fines up to $35,000 details here.
  • Maintaining or operating a controlled substances production facility (meth lab). This is a 1st degree “strict liability” drug crime with a penalty of 10-20 years imprisonment and fines up to $300,000 see statute.
  • Distribution, possession with intent to distribute, or other offenses related to methamphetamine itself. See NJ meth laws for more.

Defendants should retain an experienced New Jersey criminal defense lawyer to argue against the permissive inference and try to avoid a conviction with severe penalties. Potential angles of defense have been outlined above. Challenging the prosecution’s chemical quantity evidence and arguing legitimate possession of legally-obtained ephedrine are common strategies.

In conclusion, Section 2C:35-27 is an important statute allowing easier prosecution of certain meth lab and drug precursor cases. But experienced legal advocacy can still make a major difference in the outcome for defendants. Anyone facing charges related to this law should seek counsel from a New Jersey attorney well-versed in controlled substances criminal defense.

Schedule Your Consultation Now