Tulsa Endeavoring to Manufacture Lawyer for Oklahoma Drug Charges

What Is Endeavoring to Manufacture in Oklahoma?

Oklahoma's endeavoring statute is found at 63 O.S. § 2-408. It applies to a person who offers, solicits, attempts, endeavors, or conspires to commit an offense under the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act.

When the allegation is endeavoring to manufacture, prosecutors are claiming that the accused knowingly or intentionally made an effort directed toward manufacturing a particular controlled dangerous substance. The word endeavoring is important. Oklahoma does not treat it as simply another name for an ordinary criminal attempt. The State does not have to prove the type of overt act required for a traditional attempt charge.

That does not eliminate the State's burden of proving what the accused person knew and intended. An innocent act does not become endeavoring simply because police later interpret it as suspicious. Association with someone involved in drug activity is not the same thing as knowingly participating in that activity.

What Does the State Have to Prove?

For an endeavoring to manufacture charge, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused:

1. acted knowingly or intentionally;
2. endeavored;
3. to manufacture;
4. the particular controlled dangerous substance alleged.

Oklahoma law defines manufacturing broadly. It includes producing, preparing, propagating, compounding, or processing a controlled dangerous substance, including production through extraction or chemical synthesis.

A completed drug product is not required for an endeavoring prosecution. Police can make the accusation while the alleged manufacturing activity is incomplete.

That makes the surrounding evidence especially important. Prosecutors may try to establish intent through the combination of materials they found, the way those materials were stored, electronic communications, purchase records, statements, surveillance, or testimony from another person. The question remains whether the evidence proves a knowing and intentional endeavor by the person actually charged.

Evidence Found in Someone Else's Car or Home

The Okmulgee case is an unusually clear example of a problem that appears in many drug prosecutions: police find incriminating evidence in a place occupied or used by more than one person.

A car may have a driver, passengers, and an owner who is not driving. A house may contain several residents. A garage or storage area may be used by more than one person. A motel room may have multiple occupants. The fact that drugs or manufacturing materials were physically present does not identify who knew about them.

Rob looks at facts such as:

• who owned the vehicle or property;
• who had access to the area where the evidence was found;
• whether the evidence was visible or concealed;
• where the accused person's own belongings were located;
• fingerprints or other evidence connecting a person to particular items;
• text messages or other communications;
• statements made by the people involved;
• purchase or financial records;
• who was observed handling the materials; and
• whether another person's conduct better explains why the evidence was there.

Those details can separate evidence of actual participation from mere presence.

Manufacturing Materials Do Not Explain Themselves

Police may describe chemicals, containers, tubing, oils, solvents, filters, heating equipment, vape cartridges, concentrates, or other materials as components of a drug manufacturing operation.

Sometimes the combination of items presents strong evidence of manufacturing activity. That still leaves separate questions about who possessed them, who knew about them, and who intended to use them.

Some items also have lawful uses. An object does not acquire criminal intent simply because an officer places it on an evidence table next to other suspicious items.

The actual substance involved, quantity, location, laboratory results, ownership, purchase history, and relationship among the items can all affect what the evidence shows.

Alleged Precursors and Endeavoring Are Different Charges

Oklahoma separately criminalizes possession of specified precursor substances when accompanied by the required intent concerning manufacture of a controlled dangerous substance.

Possession of precursors and endeavoring to manufacture are related concepts, but they are not interchangeable.

An endeavoring prosecution does not require prosecutors to prove that the accused possessed a particular listed precursor in every case. Evidence involving precursors can instead become one part of the State's argument that the person was making an effort to manufacture drugs.

The distinction becomes important when the evidence consists largely of chemicals or other materials rather than an actual controlled dangerous substance.

Text Messages, Phones, and Digital Evidence

Modern manufacturing investigations frequently extend beyond what police physically seize. Investigators may rely on text messages, photographs, internet searches, social media communications, location information, payment records, or other data from a phone.

A handful of selected messages can create a misleading impression when separated from the rest of the conversation. Rob examines who was communicating, what was said before and after the quoted message, when the exchange occurred, and whether the phone or account can actually be attributed to the accused.

The same issue arises when several people use the same device or have access to an account. Digital evidence can provide powerful evidence of intent. It can also show that investigators attributed another person's activity to the wrong person.

When Another Person Blames You

Multi-person drug cases create an obvious incentive for one suspect to minimize his or her own involvement. A vehicle owner may blame a passenger. A resident may blame another person living in the house. Someone who purchased supplies may claim another person told them what to buy.

Those accusations need to be tested against independent evidence. If a person's story conflicts with physical evidence, phone records, body camera footage, purchase records, ownership records, or earlier statements, those inconsistencies can become important. The accusation itself is evidence. It does not automatically make the accusation true.

Search Warrants and Vehicle Searches

Endeavoring cases frequently depend on evidence obtained during a search. When a case starts with a traffic stop, Rob reviews the sequence of events from the beginning: the reason for the stop, what the officer observed, how long the detention lasted, why the officer expanded the investigation, what was said about consent, and what legal basis police claimed for searching different parts of the vehicle.

The scope of a vehicle search can matter. So can the distinction between evidence found in an accused person's personal belongings and evidence found somewhere else in a vehicle belonging to another person.

When police use a search warrant, the analysis changes. Rob reviews the affidavit supporting the warrant, the information presented to the judge, the places officers were authorized to search, and what police actually did while executing it. Body camera video can be particularly valuable because it allows the defense to compare the actual encounter with the written report.

Statements to Police

An arrest can create tremendous pressure to explain what happened. That can be especially dangerous when the person does not yet know what officers found elsewhere in a car, home, or other location.

Statements made before or after a search can later be used to establish knowledge, access, ownership, or intent. Rob examines when questioning occurred, whether the person was in custody, what officers asked, whether Miranda warnings were required and given, and whether the person's words are being accurately represented.

A person who genuinely does not know about hidden evidence can still create problems by guessing, agreeing with an officer's assumptions, or attempting to explain facts the person does not actually know.

Endeavoring to Manufacture Is Not the Same as Manufacturing

Manufacturing and endeavoring to manufacture involve the same prohibited objective, but they are different accusations. A manufacturing charge concerns conduct that falls within Oklahoma's definition of actually manufacturing or attempting to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance. Endeavoring reaches an effort directed toward that objective even though manufacturing was not completed.

Oklahoma's Court of Criminal Appeals has specifically held that endeavoring is different from ordinary criminal attempt. Prosecutors do not have to prove an overt act in the traditional attempt sense. They do still have to prove the knowing or intentional endeavor of the person charged.

That is why evidence showing that a manufacturing operation existed somewhere is not necessarily enough. The State must connect the accused person to that operation in the manner required by the charge.

Penalties for Endeavoring to Manufacture in Oklahoma

Oklahoma does not assign one universal sentence to every endeavoring to manufacture case. Section 2-408 ties punishment to the offense that was the object of the endeavor. The first question is consequently what manufacturing offense prosecutors claim the person was endeavoring to commit.

Under Oklahoma's manufacturing provision in § 2-401(G), manufacturing or attempting to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance is a Class A2 felony. That provision carries seven years to life in prison and a fine of at least $50,000.

Oklahoma law also contains a separate manufacturing provision classified as a Class C2 felony, with a different sentencing structure and a fine of up to $25,000. Certain quantity based manufacturing allegations can qualify as aggravated manufacturing, a Class A1 felony carrying still greater punishment.

Section 2-408 incorporates the penalty for the underlying offense. Rob starts with the actual charging document, the controlled substance involved, the alleged conduct, and the manufacturing provision prosecutors are relying on before advising a client about sentencing exposure.

What Rob Examines in an Endeavoring Case

The charge itself can sound overwhelming. The more useful approach is to break the prosecution's theory into pieces. Rob looks at what police claim was being manufactured and why they are making that claim. He examines the alleged manufacturing materials, where they were found, and who actually controlled that location. He compares witness statements with physical and digital evidence. If police rely on residue or a controlled substance, he reviews the laboratory evidence.

When the case involves phones, Rob looks beyond isolated screenshots. When it involves several people, he separates one person's conduct from another's. When the evidence came from a traffic stop or search warrant, he examines whether police obtained it lawfully.

The Okmulgee County case described above ultimately turned on something much more basic than whether the materials in the trunk could be used to manufacture THC vape cartridges. They could.

The question was whether Rob's client knew they were there and was endeavoring to participate in that operation. The evidence ultimately did not support that conclusion, and the felony was dismissed.