STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JEREMY LEE McATEE, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-1019 / 09-0874
Filed December 30, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JEREMY LEE McATEE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Marsha M.
Beckelman, Judge.
Jeremy Lee McAtee appeals his convictions for violating pseudoephedrine
purchasing restrictions and for possessing pseudoephedrine with intent that it be
used to manufacture a controlled substance. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas S. Tauber, Assistant Attorney
General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Jerry Vander Sanden, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mansfield, JJ.
2
MANSFIELD, J.
Jeremy Lee McAtee appeals his convictions following a bench trial for
violating the restrictions on purchasing pseudoephedrine set forth in Iowa Code
sections 124.212(4) and 124.213 (2007), and for possessing pseudoephedrine
with intent that it be used to manufacture a controlled substance as prohibited by
section 124.401(4). McAtee contends the evidence is insufficient to support his
convictions. Specifically, he maintains that no one personally identified him as
making the purchases shown in the State’s exhibits and no one testified he was
involved with the manufacture of methamphetamine or was associated with
anyone who was. Upon our review, we reject McAtee’s sufficiency arguments
and affirm the carefully reasoned decision of the district court.
The trial evidence showed numerous purchases of pseudoephedrine were
made from pharmacies in Cedar Rapids under McAtee’s name during the second
half of 2007 and the first half of 2008. In summary, these purchases were as
follows:
Target: 13 separate purchases of 2.4 grams each between
8/25/07 and 6/19/08 – total 31.2 grams
Wal-Mart: 8 separate purchases of 2.4 grams each between
12/22/07 and 5/19/08 – total 19.2 grams
Hy-Vee: 6 separate purchases of 2.4 grams each between
10/31/07 and 3/8/08 – total 14.4 grams
CVS: 1 purchase of 2.4 grams and 1 purchase of 1.2 grams
between 1/14/08 and 2/7/08 – total 3.6 grams
It
was
explained
that
2.4
grams
is
a
ten-day
supply
when
pseudoephedrine is used for medical purposes. However, in many cases, these
purchases under McAtee’s name occurred within less than ten days of each
other; in two instances, they occurred on the same day.
3
A pharmacy manager from each store appeared at trial. Each testified
that a government-issued photo identification must be shown before a purchase
of pseudoephedrine is made, and the customer generally must look like the
person on the identification.
The customer’s name, address, birth date, and
identification number are recorded, and the customer must sign a log. Here, the
records from each pharmacy showed that McAtee’s driver’s license had been
presented on each occasion when a purchase was made.
Brian Freeberg, a Cedar Rapids police officer with extensive experience in
methamphetamine investigations, also testified. He explained that over ninetynine percent of the methamphetamine produced in the Cedar Rapids area is
made by the “Nazi method” using pseudoephedrine as a precursor. Typically,
ten grams of pseudoephedrine will yield nine grams of methamphetamine.
Freeberg testified that he first became involved in the case when he was
contacted by the Target pharmacist who reported McAtee had exceeded his legal
limit. Freeberg also testified the pattern of purchases under McAtee’s name was
consistent with pseudoephedrine being used to manufacture methamphetamine.
Multiple purchases were made within a month, and the pseudoephedrine was
sourced at multiple pharmacies. For example, on March 8, 2007, the person who
identified himself as McAtee purchased 2.4 grams at Hy-Vee and less than thirty
minutes later purchased another 2.4 grams at Target.
In a thorough opinion, the district court found McAtee had purchased more
than 7.5 grams of pseudoephedrine within a thirty-day period, in violation of Iowa
4
Code sections 124.212(4) and 124.213,1 and that he had possessed
pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance, namely
methamphetamine, in violation of section 124.401(4).2 McAtee now appeals,
arguing there was insufficient evidence to support either conviction.
We review sufficiency of evidence claims for correction of
errors at law. If the court's findings are supported by substantial
evidence, we will not disturb the findings on appeal. Evidence is
substantial if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State,
it would convince a rational fact finder that the defendant is guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Johnson, 770 N.W.2d 814, 819 (Iowa 2009).
McAtee argues first that there is no proof he was actually the person who
appeared at the various pharmacies and purchased pseudoephedrine. He points
out that none of the trial witnesses identified him personally. We do not accept
McAtee’s contention that the evidence connecting him to the purchases was
insufficient.
There was overwhelming, unrebutted evidence that someone
displaying McAtee’s driver’s license had purchased large quantities of
1
During the relevant time period, section 124.212(4)(c) provided:
A person shall present a government-issued photo identification card
when purchasing a pseudoephedrine product from a pharmacy. A person
shall not purchase more than seven thousand five hundred milligrams of
pseudoephedrine, either separately or collectively, within a thirty-day
period from a pharmacy, unless the person has a prescription for a
pseudoephedrine product in excess of that quantity.
During the relevant time period, section 124.213 provided:
A person who purchases more than seven thousand five hundred
milligrams of pseudoephedrine from a pharmacy in violation of section
124.212 . . . ., either separately or collectively, within a thirty-day period
commits a serious misdemeanor.
2
Section 124.401(4) provides:
A person who possesses any product containing any of the following
commits a class “D” felony, if the person possesses with the intent that
the product be used to manufacture any controlled substance:
....
b. Pseudoephedrine, its salts, optical isomers, salts of optical
isomers, or analogs of pseudoephedrine.
5
pseudoephedrine. There was also considerable evidence that the pharmacies
checked this purchaser’s appearance against the identification he presented.
The district court was entitled to draw the inference that the person using and
displaying McAtee’s driver’s license was, indeed, McAtee.
McAtee next argues there is no proof he possessed pseudoephedrine with
the requisite intent that it be used to manufacture methamphetamine.
We
disagree. As the district court noted, Officer Freeberg testified persuasively that
the “purchases of pseudoephedrine made by Defendant are consistent with an
individual purchasing pseudoephedrine not for a medical purpose, but for the
purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine.” As we have observed, section
124.401(4) no longer requires the defendant intend to use the precursor himself
to make the controlled substance. It merely requires the product be possessed
with the intent that “someone, not necessarily [himself], would manufacture
methamphetamine.” State v. Milom, 744 N.W.2d 117, 122 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007).
Given the volume and frequency of purchases, and the use of multiple purchase
sites within the same time period, the district court was entitled to conclude
McAtee was not buying pseudoephedrine for its own inherent qualities, but so it
could be used to make methamphetamine. See State v. Heuser, 661 N.W.2d
157, 166 (Iowa 2003) (spreading out the purchases among different merchants
“is consistent with a person trying to avoid suspicion by buying the necessary
methamphetamine precursors from a number of different stores”).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm McAtee’s convictions and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
