State v. Paris, 06-Ca-134 (2-1-2008)

OPINION

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Jonathan Paris appeals from his conviction and sentence for Possession of Chemicals Used to Manufacture a Controlled Substance. He claims that the trial court erred by failing to grant his Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal. In support, he contends that the State failed to present evidence sufficient to establish that he intended to manufacture a controlled substance.

{¶ 2} We conclude that the evidence in the record supports a reasonable inference that the 1,392 pseudoephedrine pills in Paris's possession were intended to be used in the manufacture of…