Walter E. Smith, Jr. v. State of Indiana - 10/10/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  October 10, 2013 
9:00 AM  EST

9 a.m. 84A04-1112-CR-637. Officers observed the appellant crossing the center lane while driving a U-Haul truck, and they initiated a traffic stop during which an officer’s dog alerted to the presence of drugs. Pursuant to a search warrant, the officers entered the truck’s cargo area and found two brick-like vacuum-sealed packages wrapped in duct tape, which contained more than 1,997 grams of cocaine. Smith was convicted of dealing in cocaine, a class A felony. At trial, Smith tendered a jury instruction based on Robey v. State, 454 N.E.2d 1221 (Ind. 1983); the Vigo Superior Court refused the instruction on grounds its substance was covered by the court’s own instructions. The Court of Appeals affirmed in Smith v. State, 981 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The appellant has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT