Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-433 (2026)
Promotion of methamphetamine manufacture
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) It is an offense for a person to promote methamphetamine manufacture. A person promotes methamphetamine manufacture who:
- (1) Sells, purchases, acquires, or delivers any chemical, drug, ingredient, or apparatus that can be used to produce methamphetamine, knowing that it will be used to produce methamphetamine, or with reckless disregard of its intended use;
- (2) Purchases or possesses more than nine (9) grams of an immediate methamphetamine precursor with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine or deliver the precursor to another person whom they know intends to manufacture methamphetamine, or with reckless disregard of the person's intent; or
- (3) Permits a person to use any structure or real property that the defendant owns or has control of, knowing that the person intends to use the structure to manufacture methamphetamine, or with reckless disregard of the person's intent.
- (b) Expert testimony of a qualified law enforcement officer shall be admissible to establish that a particular chemical, drug, ingredient, or apparatus can be used to produce methamphetamine. For purposes of this testimony, a rebuttable presumption is created that any commercially sold product contains or contained the product that it is represented to contain on its packaging or labels.
- (c) Possession of more than fifteen (15) grams of an immediate methamphetamine precursor shall be prima facie evidence of intent to violate this section. This subsection (c) shall not apply to the following persons or entities that lawfully possess drug products in the course of legitimate business activities:
- (1) A pharmacy or pharmacist licensed by the board of pharmacy;
- (2) A wholesale drug distributor, or its agents, licensed by the board of pharmacy;
- (3) A manufacturer of drug products, or its agents, licensed by the board of pharmacy; and
- (4) A licensed health care professional possessing the drug products in the course of carrying out the health care provider's profession.
- (d) For purposes of this section, "structure" means any house, apartment building, shop, barn, warehouse, building, vessel, railroad car, cargo container, motor vehicle, housecar, trailer, trailer coach, camper, mine, floating home, watercraft, or any other structure capable of holding a clandestine laboratory.
- (e)
- (1) If the chemical, drug, ingredient, or apparatus to produce methamphetamine is purchased in violation of subdivision (a)(1) in more than one (1) county, venue for purposes of prosecution under this section is proper in any county in which such an item was purchased.
- (2) If immediate methamphetamine precursors are purchased in violation of subdivision (a)(2) in more than one (1) county, venue for purposes of prosecution under this section is proper in any county in which a precursor was purchased.
- (f) A violation of this section is a Class D felony.
Acts 1999, ch. 446, § 1; 2005, ch. 18, § 11; 2011, ch. 292, § 4; 2011, ch. 309, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Gary Lee Marise, 197 S.W.3d 762 (Tenn. 2006).
State of Tennessee v. Gary Lee Marise, 197 S.W.3d 762 (Tenn. 2006). “3d at 46 ); see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-433(a). Because the State was required to prove the chemical composition of the anhydrous ammonia beyond a reasonable doubt, and because no chemical test was performed to determine the composition of the substance found, we hold that…”
United States v. Charles Eason, 919 F.3d 385 (6th Cir. 2019). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-433 . Since these convictions are serious drug offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), we REVERSE Eason's sentence and REMAND for resentencing.”
United States v. Donald Myers, 925 F.3d 881 (6th Cir. 2019). “2019), that the related Tennessee offense of promoting methamphetamine manufacture, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-433 , is a serious drug offense under the ACCA.”
State of Tennessee v. Dana Kennedy Walls (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “See T.C.A. § 39-17-433(a)(1) (2006). She argues that J.”
State of Tennessee v. Cynthia Denise Gray (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “M2011-02753-CCA-R3-CD - Filed February 4, 2013 A jury convicted the defendant, Cynthia Denise Gray, of one count of the promotion of the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class D felony, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-433 (2010). The trial court sentenced…”
State of Tennessee v. Dwight A. Shankle (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “” T.C.A. § 39-17-433(a)(1). The defendant was not found guilty of this offense.”
State of Tennessee v. Christy Reynolds (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “Thereafter, the trial court issued an order denying the motion, finding that “[t]he State is free to lawfully prosecute the [D]efendant under T.C.A. § 39-17-433 (1) and is not compelled to pursue prosecution under T.”
State of Tennessee v. Donnie Dewayne Davenport (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “See T.C.A. § 39-17-433. He was sentenced as a Range III, career offender to twelve years‟ confinement to be served at sixty percent.”
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Curtis Adkins (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-433, -435 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to six years’ and fourteen years’ confinement, respectively, to be served concurrently but consecutively to the Defendant’s convictions in Georgia.”
State of Tennessee v. Charles Laten Howell, III (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “1 See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-433 (e). In this appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in admitting blister packs of pseudoephedrine caplets because the State failed to establish a chain of custody.”
State of Tennessee v. Terry R. Cary (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-433 provides, in relevant part, that: (a) It is an offense for a person to promote methamphetamine manufacture.”
State of Tennessee v. Britt Alan Ferguson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “] Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-433 (a)(1), (2) (2006).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-433(a) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Gary Lee Marise, 197 S.W.3d 762 (Tenn. 2006). “3d at 46 ); see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-433(a). Because the State was required to prove the chemical composition of the anhydrous ammonia beyond a reasonable doubt, and because no chemical test was performed to determine the composition of the substance found, we hold that…”
State of Tennessee v. Gary Lee Marise (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005).
State of Tennessee v. Anthony D. Bynum (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-433(a)(1) — 14 cases
State of Tennessee v. Gary Lee Marise, 197 S.W.3d 762 (Tenn. 2006). “3d at 46 ); see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-433(a). Because the State was required to prove the chemical composition of the anhydrous ammonia beyond a reasonable doubt, and because no chemical test was performed to determine the composition of the substance found, we hold that…”
State of Tennessee v. Dwight A. Shankle (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “” T.C.A. § 39-17-433(a)(1). The defendant was not found guilty of this offense.”
State of Tennessee v. Dana Kennedy Walls (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “See T.C.A. § 39-17-433(a)(1) (2006). She argues that J.”
Shawn Gibson Delosh v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
State of Tennessee v. Ernest Dodd (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-433(a)(2) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Terry R. Cary (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-433 provides, in relevant part, that: (a) It is an offense for a person to promote methamphetamine manufacture.”
State of Tennessee v. Christy Reynolds (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “Thereafter, the trial court issued an order denying the motion, finding that “[t]he State is free to lawfully prosecute the [D]efendant under T.C.A. § 39-17-433 (1) and is not compelled to pursue prosecution under T.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-433(a)(3) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Dana Kennedy Walls (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “See T.C.A. § 39-17-433(a)(1) (2006). She argues that J.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-433(b) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Gary Lee Marise, 197 S.W.3d 762 (Tenn. 2006). “3d at 46 ); see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-433(a). Because the State was required to prove the chemical composition of the anhydrous ammonia beyond a reasonable doubt, and because no chemical test was performed to determine the composition of the substance found, we hold that…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.