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.
7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1931–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hape v. Stategreen1 sentence2016“Possession of a substantial amount of narcotics constitutes circumstantial evidence of intent to deliver, and if the quantity is such that it could not be personally consumed or used, then an inference of a predisposition to sell can reasonably be drawn.” Hape v. State, 903 N.E.2d 977, 997-98 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), trans. denied. 4 [26] In addition to the heroin and marijuana found on Clemmons’s person, police discovered 132.95 grams of a cutting agent underneath the driver’s seat of the vehicle that Clemmons was driving. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Graham v. State
green
2 sentences1979Inasmuch as the trial court eventually excluded State’s Exhibit No. 1 because of the break in the chain of custody, defendant contends that there is a failure of proof to connect her with any controlled substance, and that she is entitled to a reversal under the holding of Graham v. State (1970), 253 Ind. 525 , 255 N.E.2d 652 . 1979Inasmuch as the trial court eventually excluded State’s Exhibit No. 1 because of the break in the chain of custody, defendant contends that there is a failure of proof to connect her with any controlled substance, and that she is entitled to a reversal under the holding of Graham v. State (1970), 253 Ind. 525 , 255 N.E.2d 652 . | 2 | 1976–1979 |
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
green
2 sentences2012The Court held that the laboratory test report of the chemical blood analysis was created solely for an “evidentiary purpose” and was “made in aid of a police investigation.” Id. at 2717 . 2012Therefore, the report “rank[ed] as testimonial.” Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Bellamy v. State
green
2 sentences1974We need not and do not, therefore, deem as determinative Bellamy v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 254 , 286 N.E.2d 401 which held a preliminary field test by arresting officers sufficient evidence as to the identity of the substance seized without regard to a subsequent laboratory test which was possibly affected by a break in the chain of custody. 1974We need not and do not, therefore, deem as determinative Bellamy v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 254 , 286 N.E.2d 401 which held a preliminary field test by arresting officers sufficient evidence as to the identity of the substance seized without regard to a subsequent laboratory test which was possibly affected by a break in the chain of custody. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences1974The custodial procedures followed in the instant case are similar to,- and in fact more stringent than, those followed in Jones v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 463 , 296 N.E.2d 407 . 1974The custodial procedures followed in the instant case are similar to,- and in fact more stringent than, those followed in Jones v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 463 , 296 N.E.2d 407 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Gillenwater v. State
neutral
2 sentences1931Koehler v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 387, 391 , 123 N. E: 111; Dillon v. State (1923), 194 Ind. 600, 604 , 142 N. E. 643 ; Gillenwater v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 556, 560 , 147 N. E. 714 . 3 On cross-examination, the doctor who made the laboratory test was asked “How long, as a rule, does it take to accumulate that much per cent of alcohol” and he stated, “that all depends upon temperature, and whether there is any yeast present or not, any sugar or not, to ferment.” His further cross-examination was as follows: “Q. 1931Koehler v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 387, 391 , 123 N. E: 111; Dillon v. State (1923), 194 Ind. 600, 604 , 142 N. E. 643 ; Gillenwater v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 556, 560 , 147 N. E. 714 . 3 On cross-examination, the doctor who made the laboratory test was asked “How long, as a rule, does it take to accumulate that much per cent of alcohol” and he stated, “that all depends upon temperature, and whether there is any yeast present or not, any sugar or not, to ferment.” His further cross-examination was as follows: “Q. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Bass v. State
green
1 sentence1931A party who objects to the admission of evidence 1 must state or point out to the trial court with reasonable certainty the specific grounds of his objection, and, when such grounds are stated, the implication is that there are not others or, if others, that they are waived. 2 Howard v. State (1921), 191 Ind. 232, 242 , 131 N. E. 403 ; Bass v. State (1894), 136 Ind. 165 , 171 N. E. 124 . | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Koehler v. State
neutral
1 sentence1931Koehler v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 387, 391 , 123 N. E: 111; Dillon v. State (1923), 194 Ind. 600, 604 , 142 N. E. 643 ; Gillenwater v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 556, 560 , 147 N. E. 714 . 3 On cross-examination, the doctor who made the laboratory test was asked “How long, as a rule, does it take to accumulate that much per cent of alcohol” and he stated, “that all depends upon temperature, and whether there is any yeast present or not, any sugar or not, to ferment.” His further cross-examination was as follows: “Q. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Howard v. State
green
2 sentences1931A party who objects to the admission of evidence 1 must state or point out to the trial court with reasonable certainty the specific grounds of his objection, and, when such grounds are stated, the implication is that there are not others or, if others, that they are waived. 2 Howard v. State (1921), 191 Ind. 232, 242 , 131 N. E. 403 ; Bass v. State (1894), 136 Ind. 165 , 171 N. E. 124 . 1931A party who objects to the admission of evidence 1 must state or point out to the trial court with reasonable certainty the specific grounds of his objection, and, when such grounds are stated, the implication is that there are not others or, if others, that they are waived. 2 Howard v. State (1921), 191 Ind. 232, 242 , 131 N. E. 403 ; Bass v. State (1894), 136 Ind. 165 , 171 N. E. 124 . | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Dillon v. State
neutral
2 sentences1931Koehler v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 387, 391 , 123 N. E: 111; Dillon v. State (1923), 194 Ind. 600, 604 , 142 N. E. 643 ; Gillenwater v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 556, 560 , 147 N. E. 714 . 3 On cross-examination, the doctor who made the laboratory test was asked “How long, as a rule, does it take to accumulate that much per cent of alcohol” and he stated, “that all depends upon temperature, and whether there is any yeast present or not, any sugar or not, to ferment.” His further cross-examination was as follows: “Q. 1931Koehler v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 387, 391 , 123 N. E: 111; Dillon v. State (1923), 194 Ind. 600, 604 , 142 N. E. 643 ; Gillenwater v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 556, 560 , 147 N. E. 714 . 3 On cross-examination, the doctor who made the laboratory test was asked “How long, as a rule, does it take to accumulate that much per cent of alcohol” and he stated, “that all depends upon temperature, and whether there is any yeast present or not, any sugar or not, to ferment.” His further cross-examination was as follows: “Q. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.