Does a defendant have to be engaged in, or even have the necessary equipment for, the manufacturing process to be found guilty of manufacturing?

Defendant's position is inconsistent with two recent Court of Appeal decisions. In People v. Lancellotti (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 809, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 640, the defendant was convicted of manufacturing based on his ownership of a " 'boxed' " laboratory in a storage locker containing " 'virtually all' " of the equipment needed to manufacture methamphetamine. (Id., at p. 812, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 640.) He argued the evidence was insufficient because the locker did not contain a piece of equipment and a chemical agent which were necessary for the final step of the manufacturing process. (Id., at p. 811, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 640.)

The court expressly rejected the suggestion that the defendant had to be engaged in, or even have the necessary equipment for, the completion of the final product in order to be guilty of manufacturing. It stated: " '[T]he conduct proscribed by [Health and Safety Code] section 11379.6 encompasses the initial and intermediate steps carried out to manufacture, produce or process [a controlled substance].' " (Lancellotti, supra, 19 [66 Cal.App.4th 704] Cal.App.4th at p. 813, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 640, italics added, quoting People v. Jackson (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1493, 1504, 267 Cal.Rptr. 841.) Similarly, the court stated: " 'The ongoing and progressive making, assembly or creation of [a controlled substance] from its component chemicals may, but does not necessarily by definition, include the culmination of the manufacturing process, the finished ... product.' " (Lancellotti, supra, at p. 814, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 640.)