Holt v. State, 178S15

Docket NºNo. 178S15
Citation272 Ind. 544, 400 N.E.2d 130
Case DateFebruary 08, 1980
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 130

400 N.E.2d 130
272 Ind. 544
Winifred HOLT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 178S15.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Feb. 8, 1980.

[272 Ind. 545] Vernon E. St. John, Lafayette, for appellant.

Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Rollin E. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Defendant-appellant Winifred Holt was charged in four separate causes with a total of nine counts of delivering a controlled substance, Ind. Code § 35-24.1-4.1-2 (Burns 1975) (phendimetrazine), and § 35-24.1-4.1-10 (marijuana). He was tried to a jury in Montgomery Circuit Court and found guilty on all nine counts. The trial court sentenced Holt to twenty years imprisonment on each count and fined him $2000.00 on each count.

Appellant Holt presents one central issue in this appeal. He argues that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of possession of the substances in question. Therefore, he asserts, the exhibits which were made up of these substances, and the testimony of the State's chemist as to their content, should not have been admitted into evidence. He also contends that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence because the chain of possession was not proved.

Page 131

This case involves the sale of narcotics by appellant Holt on nine different occasions. Some of the purchases were made by an informant, Raymond Roarks, under the control and supervision of Officer George Weir of the Metropolitan Enforcement Group (M.E.G.). On other occasions, Officer Weir dealt directly with Holt. Shortly after Roarks or Weir made each of the purchases, Weir would place the evidence in a briefcase in the trunk of his automobile. The following day, Weir would take the container, either a small pill bottle or a plastic bag, out of the trunk and carry it to his office. After placing the container in an envelope, Weir turned over the evidence to Lieutenant Rudolf, who was in charge of the property room located in the M.E.G. offices. Rudolf testified that he was the only person who had a key to this room and that the room [272 Ind. 546] was protected by an infra-red burglary prevention device. On each occasion, Rudolf would transfer the evidence to the Indiana State Police laboratory for analysis. There is no question that the materials given by Weir to Rudolf were the same materials which were transferred to the State Police, analyzed by chemists there, and returned to Rudolf.

In attacking the chain of custody,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Burris v. State, No. 981
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 29, 1984
    ...that reasonable assurance be provided that the exhibit has passed through various hands in an undisturbed condition. Holt v. State, (1980) 272 Ind. 544, 400 N.E.2d 130. All possibilities of tampering need not be excluded. Id." Moody v. State, (1983) Ind., 448 N.E.2d 660. In Moody, ther......
  • Cobb v. State, No. 778S142
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 7, 1980
    ...of such items, in order to insure that no substitution, tampering or mistake occurred during the process. See Holt v. State, (1980) Ind., 400 N.E.2d 130. Thus, as we explained in Moten v. State, supra, the standard is "applied with degrees of strictness varying inversely with the poten......
  • Hurst v. State, No. 4-983A311
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 6, 1984
    ..."strongly suggest" the whereabouts of the evidence from the moment of seizure until introduction at trial. Holt v. State, (1980) 272 Ind. 544, 400 N.E.2d 130; Lewandoski v. State, (1979) 271 Ind. 4, 389 N.E.2d 706. Hurst has provided us with no evidence which would cast any suspic......
  • Jones v. State, No. 280S32
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 2, 1981
    ...The State must present only evidence which strongly suggests the whereabouts of the evidence at all times. Holt v. State, (1980) Ind., 400 N.E.2d 130. The mere possibility that evidence may have been tampered with will not make the evidence totally objectionable. Kolb v. State, (1972) 258 I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Burris v. State, No. 981
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 29, 1984
    ...that reasonable assurance be provided that the exhibit has passed through various hands in an undisturbed condition. Holt v. State, (1980) 272 Ind. 544, 400 N.E.2d 130. All possibilities of tampering need not be excluded. Id." Moody v. State, (1983) Ind., 448 N.E.2d 660. In Moody, ther......
  • Cobb v. State, No. 778S142
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 7, 1980
    ...of such items, in order to insure that no substitution, tampering or mistake occurred during the process. See Holt v. State, (1980) Ind., 400 N.E.2d 130. Thus, as we explained in Moten v. State, supra, the standard is "applied with degrees of strictness varying inversely with the poten......
  • Hurst v. State, No. 4-983A311
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 6, 1984
    ..."strongly suggest" the whereabouts of the evidence from the moment of seizure until introduction at trial. Holt v. State, (1980) 272 Ind. 544, 400 N.E.2d 130; Lewandoski v. State, (1979) 271 Ind. 4, 389 N.E.2d 706. Hurst has provided us with no evidence which would cast any suspic......
  • Jones v. State, No. 280S32
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 2, 1981
    ...The State must present only evidence which strongly suggests the whereabouts of the evidence at all times. Holt v. State, (1980) Ind., 400 N.E.2d 130. The mere possibility that evidence may have been tampered with will not make the evidence totally objectionable. Kolb v. State, (1972) 258 I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT