ILNews

Judges reverse possession of meth, paraphernalia convictions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a consolidated appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a Huntington County man’s convictions and sentences for possession of methamphetamine and paraphernalia, ruling the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence purportedly seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Johnathon Aslinger was charged in Case No. 127 with the possession counts; he was charged with dealing in methamphetamine as a Class A felony in Case No. 152. The charges in Case No. 127 stem from a stop by police investigating vehicle break-ins. Aslinger and his friend Geoffrey Fugate were standing near a street where the cars were located and fit the description provided by dispatch. The officer saw a rolled cigarette behind Aslinger’s ear, which he said was “B2,” a form of synthetic drug Spice. A witness saw the two and said they were not the men who broke into the vehicles. By this time, the officer had searched Aslinger’s pockets because he saw a knife and found drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine. He also tested the cigarette and found it to be marijuana.

While on bond for Case No. 127, Aslinger was arrested for making meth within 1,000 feet of a public park.

He was convicted in separate trials, but sentenced together to 32 years for the dealing charge, enhanced by five years for the habitual substance offender adjudication. In the other case, he received a total of seven years, which included a five-and-a-half-year enhancement for being adjudicated as a habitual substance offender.

In Johnathon R. Aslinger v. State of Indiana, 35A02-1303-CR-296, the judges reversed his convictions in Case No. 127, finding the officer’s conduct went beyond what is allowed during a Terry stop. Judge Patricia Riley noted that a hand-rolled cigarette is not illegal per se and the officer only deduced there was a drug in it after removing it from Aslinger’s ear.

The judges also held that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive HSO enhancements in the two cases. On remand, they instructed the court to order the enhancements be served concurrently.

The appellate judges affirmed Aslinger’s dealing conviction, finding no error in the trial court’s decision to refuse to submit his tendered jury instruction asking the jury to find his conviction should not have been enhanced to a Class A felony. They also affirmed his sentence on the dealing conviction.

Judge Margret Robb concurred in a separate opinion, noting she believed the majority’s statement of law applicable to the plain view doctrine is too broad.
 

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT