NAJAM, J.
. . . The one-gallon pitcher had been used as a reaction vessel for the methamphetamine manufacturing process. The pitcher contained pill dough, the material that remains after the active ingredient of the pseudoephedrine has been removed during the manufacturing process. Pill dough is produced during an intermediate step in the manufacturing process but contains methamphetamine. The pitcher smelled strongly of ammonia, another substance used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
. . . .
Hundley next contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that he was dealing in methamphetamine, as a Class A felony. Specifically, Hundley contends that the State did not prove that the weight of the methamphetamine found at the campsite was in excess of three grams and, therefore, the State did not prove the Class A felony. Hundley points out that his conviction was based on the weight of the pill dough sample that was tested and that the pill dough contained material in addition to methamphetamine. Hundley then argues that the court should have considered only the weight of pure methamphetamine in determining the level of his offense. We cannot agree.
Again, the State was required to show that Hundley knowingly or intentionally manufactured and/or financed the manufacture of more than three grams of methamphetamine, pure or adulterated. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1 . . . . The weight element of three or more grams elevated the offense to a Class A felony. Indiana Code Section 35-48-1-18(1) defines “manufacture” to mean, in relevant part,
the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of natural origin, independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and includes any packaging or repackaging of the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container.
Section 35-48-1-18 “does not require that the process be completed or that there actually be a final product before the statute applies.” . . . .
The question presented in this case is whether the weight of an intermediate substance that is created in the process of manufacturing methamphetamine should be considered as a whole in determining the weight element of the offense. We hold that where, as here, the intermediate step is so near the end of the manufacturing process that the final product is present in the chemical compound, that substance qualifies as an “adulterated drug” for purposes of our manufacturing statutes.
ROBB, C.J., and CRONE, J., concur.