Appellant was convicted of several methamphetamine possession and manufacturing offenses, including, in Count 3, possession of hydriodic acid with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. On appeal, she argued that Count 3 had to be reversed because the jury was instructed with an unconstitutional mandatory presumption which required it to find that she possessed hydriodic acid if it found she possessed the essential chemicals red phosphorous and iodine. The appellate court here agreed. There was no rational basis to conclude that the two essential chemicals constituted hydriodic acid. Further, there was absolutely no evidentiary support for a finding of the presumed fact of possession of hydriodic acid, and no hydriodic acid was found in appellant’s residence. Therefore, the error was not harmless and reversal was required.