Burgin v. State, 1184S445
| Decision Date | 03 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 1184S445,1184S445 |
| Citation | 475 N.E.2d 1155 |
| Parties | James A. BURGIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Howard S. Grimm, Jr., Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Richard C. Webster, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
A jury trial resulted in a conviction for the crime of Dealing in a Schedule I Controlled Substance.
The facts are: On November 5, 1981, Detective Steven J. Hamilton of the Allen County Police Department, accompanied by a confidential informant, entered the appellant's apartment in Decatur, Indiana. The confidential informant introduced him to appellant and a woman named Marlene Beitler. After a brief conversation Beitler asked Hamilton if he was there to pick up some acid. He replied that he was and that he wanted 40 hits.
Beitler then left the room to obtain the LSD. Hamilton and the confidential informant engaged in a conversation with appellant concerning drugs. Appellant told them that he had to be very careful with whom he dealt because he had been "busted" before. Appellant further stated the reason he was having Beitler handle the drugs was that he did not want to handle them in the presence of Hamilton. Hamilton then asked appellant how much he wanted for the drugs. Appellant said $2.00 a hit or a total of $80.00.
When Beitler returned to the room, she handed Hamilton the LSD and Hamilton gave appellant $80.00. Hamilton then asked appellant to count the money, which he did. Appellant then put the money in his pocket.
Beitler testified that she was also charged with the same crime as appellant and that her trial had not yet taken place. She testified that appellant kept drugs consisting of LSD in the apartment and that he sold them to friends. Beitler testified she helped him keep the drugs and that if sales were made, he kept the money. Her statement of the facts in question was essentially the same as Detective Hamilton's. On cross-examination she denied that any deal had been made with the prosecutor concerning any sentence she might receive as a result of the instant charge.
Appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction. He takes the position the evidence shows only that Beitler obtained the drugs and gave them to Detective Hamilton. Appellant contends Hamilton forced the money on him at the close of the transaction.
There is sufficient evidence in this case to sustain the verdict of the jury that appellant was in fact involved in the drug transaction. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wisehart v. State
...State did not violate its disclosure obligations. 49 See St. John v. State, 523 N.E.2d 1353, 1356 (Ind.1988) (citing Burgin v. State, 475 N.E.2d 1155, 1156-57 (Ind.1985)) ("... without concrete evidence of an understanding we have not required disclosure"). See also McCord, 622 N.E.2d at 50......
-
Burgin v. Broglin
...to disclose an agreement made with Beitler for her testimony. 2 The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed Burgin's conviction in Burgin v. State, 475 N.E.2d 1155 (Ind.1985). In disposing of the question of whether the non-disclosure of Beitler's alleged plea agreement prejudiced Burgin, the court ......
-
St. John v. State
...merits reversal). Without concrete evidence of an agreement or understanding, we have not required disclosure. See Burgin v. State (1985), Ind., 475 N.E.2d 1155 (disclosure not required when witness charged with crime but not yet tried; no evidence of any transaction between prosecutor and ......
-
McBroom v. State
...v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 321, 416 N.E.2d 1252. Disclosure is not required absent concrete evidence of an agreement. Burgin v. State (1984), Ind., 475 N.E.2d 1155. Because the existence of an agreement is a factual question, we will affirm the trial court's decision if it is supported by su......