ILNews

COA: State must prove violation of statute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals addressed for the first time today whether under Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-16(b) a defendant only has the burden of placing the issue in question where the state's evidence hasn't done so.

In Kenneth Harrison v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-0807-CR-423, Kenneth Harrison appealed his convictions for Class A felony dealing in cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public park and Class B felony possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public park, arguing the enhancement statute for dealing or possession of drugs near a park constitutes a mitigating factor that reduces culpability so he doesn't have the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeals examined Adkins v. State, 887 N.E.2d 934, 938 (Ind. 2008), and found the statute in question in the instant case doesn't excuse a defendant from culpability but operates only to reduce the level of culpability when certain factors are present, wrote Judge Terry Crone. A defendant has only the burden of placing the issue in question and then the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was either within 1,000 feet of a public park more than "briefly," or people under the age of 18 were within 1,000 feet of the park.

The state failed to carry its burden in the instant case. The record shows Harrison was briefly within 1,000 feet of the park when he actually sold the cocaine to an undercover officer while walking, and the state failed to show Harrison was constantly within 1,000 feet of the park during the entire sale. There was also no evidence to show people under the age of 18 near the park at the time of the sale, given it was a dark, rainy, and windy night, wrote the judge.

The appellate court reversed his conviction for Class A felony dealing in cocaine and remanded with instructions to reduce the conviction to a Class B felony and re-sentence him on that count. The Court of Appeals also remanded to the trial court to vacate Harrison's conviction of possession of cocaine on double jeopardy principles because the same cocaine was used to support both convictions.

The Court of Appeals also addressed Harrison's argument that the prosecutor committed misconduct during his closing argument by making a statement that shifted the burden of proof to Harrison. Harrison had testified a couple gave him a ride downtown so he could by marijuana and someone else must have sold the undercover officer the cocaine. The couple didn't show up for trial. The appellate court determined the prosecutor's comments were improper but don't warrant a reversal Harrison's conviction.

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. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT