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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT