ILNews

Adkins applies to drug possession defense

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

While the Indiana Court of Appeals unanimously agreed a defendant charged with possessing drugs within 1,000 feet of a school only has the burden of placing the issue of statutory defense in question where the state's evidence hasn't done so, the court split in affirming the defendant's possession conviction.

In Reynaldo A. Griffin v. State of Indiana, No. 71A03-0805-CR-260, Reynaldo Griffin was on foot when he was stopped in front of a school by a police officer who suspected the moped he was pushing was stolen. The officer discovered crack cocaine beneath the moped where Griffin stopped it. He was convicted of possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of school property, a Class D felony enhanced because he was near a school; Griffin argued pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-48-4-16(b) in his defense that he was only briefly near the school and there were no children present.

The appellate court applied the ruling in Adkins v. State, 887 N.E.2d 934 (Ind. 2008), and ruled Indiana Code Section 34-48-4-16(b) constitutes a mitigating factor that reduces culpability and therefore a defendant doesn't have the burden of proof but only the burden of placing the issue in question where the state's evidence doesn't do so, wrote Senior Judge John Sharpnack.

 "Once the defense is at issue, the State must rebut the defense by proving beyond a reasonable doubt either that the defendant was within 1000 feet of a public park more than 'briefly' or that persons under the age of eighteen at least three years junior to the defendant were within 1000 feet of the school property," wrote the senior judge.

 Although there is no "ironclad" rule as to what constitutes as a brief presence by a school, the majority held the jury's determination that Griffin wasn't briefly within 1,000 feet of the school was reasonable under the circumstances of the case. Since the state had sufficient evidence to rebut Griffin's defense, his conviction was affirmed.
 
Judge Ezra Friedlander dissented only regarding Griffin's conviction. Judge Friedlander wrote that based on the evidence, he would conclude the jury's determination to be unreasonable. The police officer estimated Griffin was in front of the school walking for about five minutes; traveling from 1,000 feet beyond a school can't take much less than five minutes when pushing a moped, the judge wrote. Also, there was no indication that if he hadn't been stopped, Griffin would have been within 1,000 feet of the school any longer than it took him to walk by it. Judge Friedlander would reduce the Class D felony conviction and remand for re-sentencing.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT