ILNews

On rehearing, panel rejects double-jeopardy meth conviction claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Shelby County man convicted of possession of methamphetamine and manufacturing was not a victim of double jeopardy, a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals held on Friday.

The panel granted rehearing in Floyd Weddle v. State of Indiana, 73A01-1209-CR-452, in which the it found a protective sweep of a home was constitutional.  Officers sweeping Floyd Weddle’s home on a warrant for theft and false informing found drug evidence that formed the basis of a subsequent warrant that turned up meth and marijuana.

The Court of Appeals earlier this year affirmed Weddle’s aggregate 35-year sentence on multiple drug charges, and on rehearing reaffirmed in greater detail why his convictions of possession of methamphetamine and manufacturing methamphetamine weren’t double jeopardy. The panel rejected arguments that the charging information for the counts didn’t specify different modes of conduct and that the state presented the same evidence to support both charges.
 
“Weddle was found in possession of methamphetamine,” Judge John Baker wrote in the five-page opinion that reaffirmed the panel’s prior ruling. “The police also found numerous accoutrements in the residence that are used to manufacture additional methamphetamine. The jury could have reasonably concluded that Weddle was in possession of methamphetamine and was in the process of manufacturing an additional amount of the drug.”

The panel also included Judges Cale Bradford and Melissa May.
 

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT