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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT