Dodson v. State, No. 1177S796
| Docket Nº | No. 1177S796 |
| Citation | 381 N.E.2d 90, 269 Ind. 380 |
| Case Date | October 10, 1978 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 90
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
[269 Ind. 381]
Page 91
Stephen W. Dillon, Indianapolis, for appellant.Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Richard Albert Alford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
PIVARNIK, Justice.
Following a bench trial in the Miami Circuit Court on June 20, 1977, appellant Dodson was found guilty on one of three counts of Delivering a Schedule III Controlled Substance (phencyclidine). The court sentenced Dodson to twenty years imprisonment.
The record reveals that Officers Ashenfelter and Rudolph of the Kokomo Police Department, Howard County, were working in conjunction with the Miami County Prosecutor's office in the field of illicit drug sales. Ashenfelter, working undercover, had arranged to buy a quantity of drugs from one Dan Frazier. Appellant, who was Frazier's supplier, gave Frazier the key to his residence so that Frazier might obtain the drugs ordered by Ashenfelter. Frazier procured the drugs and returned to his trailer in Miami County where the sale to Ashenfelter was to take place. Frazier was later arrested after receiving $500 from Ashenfelter in return for the drugs. Frazier informed the prosecutor and police that his supplier would be arriving at the trailer later in the evening. That night, appellant arrived at Frazier's where he met Ashenfelter who was introduced as the friend of Frazier's for whom the drugs were procured. Ashenfelter asked appellant if it were he who was owed the $500. Appellant responded in the affirmative. The officer then turned the money over to appellant and asked whether he could obtain larger amounts of drugs. Appellant stated that he could do so and quoted him prices. Appellant was then placed under arrest for delivering a controlled substance. The
Page 92
drug was later identified as being phencyclidine or PCP.Appellant presents five issues for review concerning: (1) the denial of his Motions to Dismiss and Suppress; (2) the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act; (3) alleged misconduct by the trial judge; (4) the denial of his Motion [269 Ind. 382] for Judgment on the Evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence, and; (5) whether the sentence imposed was excessive.
I.
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his Motions to Dismiss and Suppress. The basis for this contention is that the arresting officers, Ashenfelter and Rudolph, as officers of the Kokomo Police Department, were without authority to arrest appellant in Miami County. This argument is wholly without merit. Even if the officers were without statutory arrest powers as policemen, they retained power as citizens to make an arrest where they acted upon information which reasonably led them to believe a felony had been committed. Smith v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 594, 597, 283 N.E.2d 365, 367. The appellant's Motions to Dismiss and Suppress were thus properly denied.
II.
Appellant's next contention is that the statute proscribing the sale and possession of phencyclidine is unconstitutionally vague. Phencyclidine is listed among the Schedule III controlled substances in Ind.Code § 35-24.1-2-8(c)(9) (Burns 1975). Appellant argues that since this statute states that if a substance contains "any quantity" of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Harris
...Cal.App.3d 763, 770, 104 Cal.Rptr. 89 (1972); People v. Marino, 80 Ill.App.3d 657, 661, 663-665, 400 N.E.2d 491 (1980); Dodson v. State, 381 N.E.2d 90, 92 (Ind.1978); Stevenson v. State, 287 Md. at 520, 413 A.2d 1340; Nash v. State, 207 So.2d 104, 106-107 (Miss.1968). Compare State v. Cohen......
-
Decker v. State, No. 2-877-A-331
...at the time it occurred constitutes a waiver of such irregularity. Our Supreme Court recently held in Dodson v. State (1978), Ind., 381 N.E.2d 90 as "Unless there is fundamental error, a Defendant cannot be allowed to gamble on the possibility of a favorable verdict by sitting idly by,......
-
State ex rel. State v. Gustke, No. 25403.
...can make an extraterritorial warrantless arrest in the same situation that any citizen can make an arrest."); Dodson v. State, 269 Ind. 380, 382, 381 N.E.2d 90, 92 (Ind.1978) ("Even if the officers were without statutory arrest powers as policemen, they retained power as citizens ......
-
Arnold v. State, No. 1082S404
...sentence unless the record indicates a manifest abuse of discretion. George v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 339; Dodson v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 380, 381 N.E.2d 90. The sentence here was within the statutory limits and was imposed after the trial court had given full consideration to the......
-
Com. v. Harris
...Cal.App.3d 763, 770, 104 Cal.Rptr. 89 (1972); People v. Marino, 80 Ill.App.3d 657, 661, 663-665, 400 N.E.2d 491 (1980); Dodson v. State, 381 N.E.2d 90, 92 (Ind.1978); Stevenson v. State, 287 Md. at 520, 413 A.2d 1340; Nash v. State, 207 So.2d 104, 106-107 (Miss.1968). Compare State v. Cohen......
-
Decker v. State, No. 2-877-A-331
...at the time it occurred constitutes a waiver of such irregularity. Our Supreme Court recently held in Dodson v. State (1978), Ind., 381 N.E.2d 90 as "Unless there is fundamental error, a Defendant cannot be allowed to gamble on the possibility of a favorable verdict by sitting idly by,......
-
State ex rel. State v. Gustke, No. 25403.
...can make an extraterritorial warrantless arrest in the same situation that any citizen can make an arrest."); Dodson v. State, 269 Ind. 380, 382, 381 N.E.2d 90, 92 (Ind.1978) ("Even if the officers were without statutory arrest powers as policemen, they retained power as citizens ......
-
Arnold v. State, No. 1082S404
...sentence unless the record indicates a manifest abuse of discretion. George v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 339; Dodson v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 380, 381 N.E.2d 90. The sentence here was within the statutory limits and was imposed after the trial court had given full consideration to the......