Barnes, J.
….
Following Bookwalter [v. State, 22 N.E.3d 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied], the State was required to demonstrate that methamphetamine, which Smart admitted to injecting, was covered by the Legend Drug Act. Smart concedes that “methamphetamine hydrochloride” is a legend drug but argues that “methamphetamine” is not listed as a legend drug. According to Smart, the State failed to present any evidence that the methamphetamine that he admitted to injecting is the same substance as methamphetamine hydrochloride. The trial court took “judicial notice” that methamphetamine is a legend drug. [Record citations omitted throughout.] …
….
We cannot say that whether the methamphetamine injected by Smart qualifies as methamphetamine hydrochloride is a fact “not subject to reasonable dispute” or a fact that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”1 Evid. R. 201(a). On appeal, without citing any authority, the State merely argues that “it is apparent that ‘methamphetamine hydrochloride’ is simply the formal name for the drug.” We simply cannot make that connection based on the evidence presented. Consequently, we conclude that the State failed to present evidence that Smart possessed a syringe with the intent to violate the Legend Drug Act. The evidence is not sufficient to sustain this conviction.
[Footnote 1: We acknowledge our supreme court’s opinion in Reemer v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1005 (Ind. 2005). There, the State was required to show that the defendant possessed salts, isomers, or salts of isomers of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine in the context of a prosecution for possession of a precursor to methamphetamine. The State proved that the defendant had possessed pseudoephedrine hydrochloride. We reversed the defendant’s conviction on appeal because the State had failed to demonstrate that pseudoephedrine hydrochloride was a salt, isomer, or salt of isomer of pseudoephedrine. Our supreme court took notice of a medical dictionary definition that pseudoephedrine hydrochloride is “the naturally occurring isomer of ephedrine.” Reemer, 835 N.E.2d at 1010. Consequently, our supreme court found that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction for possession of a precursor to methamphetamine. This case is distinguishable from Reemer. Here, there was no evidence presented that the methamphetamine that Smart injected is the same as methamphetamine hydrochloride, and medical dictionary definitions are not helpful in resolving this issue.]
….
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur.