Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hardister v. Stategreen2 sentences2015In reaching this conclusion, we noted that the Indiana supreme court has held that “where the same cocaine supports both possession of cocaine pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-6 and dealing in cocaine pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-1, possession of cocaine is a lesser included offense of dealing in cocaine.” Id. (citing Hardister v. State, 849 N.E.2d 563, 575 (Ind. 2006); see Mason v. State, 532 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (Ind.1989)). 2014In reaching this conclusion, we noted that the Indiana Supreme Court has held that “where the same cocaine supports both possession of cocaine pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-6 and dealing in cocaine pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35^48-4-1, possession of cocaine is a lesser included offense of dealing in cocaine.” Harrison, 901 N.E.2d at 643 (citing Hardister v. State, 849 N.E.2d 563, 575 (Ind.2006); Mason v. State, 532 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (Ind.1989)). | 4 | 4 |
Mason v. Stategreen2 sentences2015In reaching this conclusion, we noted that the Indiana supreme court has held that “where the same cocaine supports both possession of cocaine pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-6 and dealing in cocaine pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-1, possession of cocaine is a lesser included offense of dealing in cocaine.” Id. (citing Hardister v. State, 849 N.E.2d 563, 575 (Ind. 2006); see Mason v. State, 532 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (Ind.1989)). 2014In reaching this conclusion, we noted that the Indiana Supreme Court has held that “where the same cocaine supports both possession of cocaine pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-6 and dealing in cocaine pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35^48-4-1, possession of cocaine is a lesser included offense of dealing in cocaine.” Harrison, 901 N.E.2d at 643 (citing Hardister v. State, 849 N.E.2d 563, 575 (Ind.2006); Mason v. State, 532 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (Ind.1989)). | 3 | 3 |
Harrison v. Stategreen2 sentences2015In reaching this conclusion, we noted that the Indiana supreme court has held that “where the same cocaine supports both possession of cocaine pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-6 and dealing in cocaine pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-1, possession of cocaine is a lesser included offense of dealing in cocaine.” Id. (citing Hardister v. State, 849 N.E.2d 563, 575 (Ind. 2006); see Mason v. State, 532 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (Ind.1989)). 2014In reaching this conclusion, we noted that the Indiana Supreme Court has held that “where the same cocaine supports both possession of cocaine pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-6 and dealing in cocaine pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35^48-4-1, possession of cocaine is a lesser included offense of dealing in cocaine.” Harrison, 901 N.E.2d at 643 (citing Hardister v. State, 849 N.E.2d 563, 575 (Ind.2006); Mason v. State, 532 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (Ind.1989)). | 2 | 3 |
Boze v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Hardister v. State, 849 N.E.2d 563, 575 (Ind.2006); see also Mason v. State, 532 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (Ind.1989) ("Possession of a narcotic drug is an inherently included lesser offense of dealing in a narcotic drug, inasmuch as it is impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser offense."). " 'Where the conviction of a greater crime cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, the double jeopardy clause bars separate *644 conviction and sentencing on the lesser crime when sentencing is imposed on the greater one.'" Mason, 532 N.E.2d at 1172 (quoting Boze v. Stat | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Walker v. State, 668 N.E.2d 243, 244-45 (Ind.1996) (holding that dealing in cocaine statute requires no mens rea or scienter with respect to whether cocaine was possessed within 1000 feet of a school). 2005See Walker v. State, 668 N.E.2d 243, 244-45 (Ind.1996) (holding that dealing in cocaine statute requires no mens rea or scienter with respect to whether cocaine was possessed within 1000 feet of a school). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. State
green
2 sentences2005We also note the holding in Davis v. State, 770 N.E.2d 319 (Ind.2002). 2005We also note the holding in Davis v. State, 770 N.E.2d 319 (Ind.2002). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.