From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hutcherson v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Nov 22, 1978
178 Ind. App. 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

reversing conviction for possession of over ten grams of a controlled substance where State failed to prove weight, an essential element

Summary of this case from Halsema v. State
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

382 N.E.2d 983 (Ind.App. 4 Dist. 1978) 178 Ind.App. 8 Marvin HUTCHERSON, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). No. 2-1076A384. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District. November 22, 1978

        Lawrence O. Sells, Indianapolis, for appellant.

       Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Terry G. Duga, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

       YOUNG, Judge.

       ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

        The State petitions for rehearing on the ground that a new question of law was erroneously decided, namely in construing I.C.1971, 35-24.1-4.1-6(b) (Burns Code Ed.) as referring to heroin, and not a substance containing heroin. It is our duty to construe criminal statutes strictly against the State and in favor of the accused. Utley v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 443, 281 N.E.2d 888; Coleman v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 627, 256 N.E.2d 389. This rule of strict construction means that criminal statutes "will not be enlarged by implication or intendment beyond the fair meaning of the language used, and will not be held to include offenses and persons other than those which are clearly described and provided for . . . ." Kelley v. State, (1954) 233 Ind. 294, 298, 119 N.E.2d 322, 324.

       Petition for Rehearing denied.

       LYBROOK, P. J. (sitting by designation), and ROBERTSON, J. (sitting by designation), concur.

Summaries of

Hutcherson v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Nov 22, 1978
178 Ind. App. 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978)

reversing conviction for possession of over ten grams of a controlled substance where State failed to prove weight, an essential element

Summary of this case from Halsema v. State

In Hutcherson, we refused to hold that the enhancement penalty for possession of heroin applied when the requisite weight could not be met absent non-narcotic portions.

Summary of this case from Romack v. State

In Hutcherson v. State, (1978) Ind. App., 381 N.E.2d 877, trans. denied, an appeal from a conviction for possession of heroin, this court concluded that because the legislature excluded from the relevant possession statute the adjectives "pure or adulterated," only that portion of a confiscated mixture comprising pure heroin — not all of the mixture, however impure — could be considered in proving the amount of heroin in an accused's possession.

Summary of this case from Jones v. State

In Hutcherson, the defendant possessed 10.98 grams of a substance containing heroin and this court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the defendant possessed pure heroin in an amount in excess of ten grams because the State failed to conduct a quantitative test of the substance.

Summary of this case from Stayton v. State
Case details for

Hutcherson v. State

Case Details

Full title:MARVIN HUTCHERSON v. STATE OF INDIANA

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: Nov 22, 1978

Citations

178 Ind. App. 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978)
178 Ind. App. 8
381 N.E.2d 877

Citing Cases

Snyder v. State

Thomas v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 1, 291 N.E.2d 557, 558. Accord, Edwards v. State (1979) [179] Ind. App.…

Parson v. State

Accord, Watt, supra; Mills, supra. Proof of a possessory interest in the premises in which contraband is…

33 Citing Cases