Having not looked at this statute for awhile, is there a list of 'additional chemical substances named as a precursor by the director'?

I thought there was a link on the forum once before, but now that there are 18 pages of topics...perhaps it's time to clean some out?

I think this link will get you there:

Immediate Precursors

I think that link went to the old list that the commissioner of health signed. If you notice that the statute changed the person who designates the precursors to the Director (of DPS) from the Commissioner, I'm wondering if the Director has promulgated a list or has adopted the previous list?

I'm being told there is not a new list. Anyone have an opinion?

DPS should be coming out with their proposed list sometime in early May. A period of public comment will follow, after which the final rules will be adopted (later this summer). We will try to provide notice to all through the website when we get more details.

Just out of curiosity, what is everyone doing in the meantime?

The problem I have with 481.124 is it appears at first glance to be a laundry list. If you have anhydrous ammonia, a chemical precursor, or an immediate precursor, Wham you've got a 2nd degree felony.

The problem arises with 481.124(b): the presumption that the person is manufacturing methamphetamine.

See, you can have (b)(1) or (b)(2) or ((b)(3)+ Anhydrous Ammonia) or ((b)(3)+ Three items from (b)(3)(B)) or ((b)(3) + (b)(3)(C)).

The officers spot (b)(3) and think that they can arrest if there is the designated quatity of pseudoephedrine tablets.

OR they think get three items off of (b)(3)(B) and you've got the felony.

If you've got a 481.124(a)(1) violation, the defendant Possessed or transported anhydrous ammonia. But, how does that jive with the Health and Safety Code's, Tampering with Anhydrous Ammonia charge under 502?

The old tampering or transport law is the precursor (pun intended) to the current 481.124. There is an overlap but there is one situation when the old law can still apply. If a guy gets observed siphoning off anhydrous ammonia from a tank in a field or at a supplier, he can be charged with tampering even if you can't show that he actually possessed the anhydrous, and you don't have all the associated problems of trying to prove just what anhydrous ammonia is and when it turned from anhydrous into just plain old "ammonia". H & S 481.124 is actually pretty simple when you remove all the presumption stuff. It took me about two years to convince all my police officers that all that stuff about three kinds of this combined with two kinds of that really just means that you get a jury charged on a presumption at trial. The actual offense is simply possession of anydrous ammonia or precursors, and you don't actually have to be able to show all that other stuff if you can prove intent. Don't know about the rest of you, but I think presumptions are pretty worthless anyway, considering the fact that the law requires the judge to tell the jury that the presumption isn't mandatory and that the jury can simply disregard it if they want to. Maybe it's just my bias but I have never seen a presumption change a juror's mind.

Actually, that's exactly how we've used the Health and Safety code. We indicted two defendants this morning on 'siphoning' circumstances and used the 'Tampering' statute.

We had a round table discussion with the PD investigators last month explaining what was the offense versus the presumption. I think they've got it figured out now. I had a hard time explaining that Muriatic acid was just the common name for Hydrochloric Acid. (which makes it a precursor) One quick spearker-phone call to the helpful folks at the DPS lab cleared up my fuzzy high school chemistry memory.

I don't honestly know how the presumption will play in front of a jury. I have yet to get to try a clan-lab case. The defendants seem to plea every time.

Is this the current list? Immediate Precursor List

OK, since that query produced no answer, is anyone using some other definition of "immediate precursor" for purposes of prosecution of 481.124(a)(2)?

Westlaw shows the list you have as current through Sept. 30, 2006.

Here's a brief (2006 WL 1469405) where the State concedes error because "Ethyl ether is not designated as an immediate precursor on the list promulgated by the director, nor were any of the substances on that list tied to ethyl ether in the evidence presented at trial. See 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE � 13.116 (effective February 16, 2005)."

This case takes judicial notice that the Texas Register includes an order adding iodine and red phosphorous. Miramontes v. State, --- S.W.3d ----, 2005 WL 2095101 (Tex.App.-El Paso Aug 31, 2005) (citing 27 TEX.REG. 8327-28 (2002)).
I can't find that order.