Hutcherson v. State
| Decision Date | 22 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-1076A384,2-1076A384 |
| Parties | Marvin HUTCHERSON, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Terry G. Duga, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
The State petitions for rehearing on the ground that a new question of law was erroneously decided, namely in construing I.C.1971, 35-24.1-4.1-6(b) (Burns Code Ed.) as referring to heroin, and not a substance containing heroin. It is our duty to construe criminal statutes strictly against the State and in favor of the accused. Utley v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 443, 281 N.E.2d 888; Coleman v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 627, 256 N.E.2d 389. This rule of strict construction means that criminal statutes "will not be enlarged by implication or intendment beyond the fair meaning of the language used, and will not be held to include offenses and persons other than those which are clearly described and provided for . . . ." Kelley v. State, (1954) 233 Ind. 294, 298, 119 N.E.2d 322, 324.
Petition for Rehearing denied.
LYBROOK, P. J. (sitting by designation), and ROBERTSON, J. (sitting by designation), concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snyder v. State
...Watt, (close proximity of defendant's clothing to contraband); Hutcherson v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 381 N.E.2d 877, reh. den. (1978) 382 N.E.2d 983 (defendants attempted flight); Mills v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 379 N.E.2d 1023 (incriminating paraphernalia linked to defendant); Moss v. Sta......
-
Williams v. State
...language used and will not be held to include offenses or persons other than those clearly described and provided for. Hutcherson v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 382 N.E.2d 983. It thus remains clear to me that the legislature "intended to provide for two distinct crimes and that reckless homici......
-
Parson v. State
...Watt, (close proximity of defendant's clothing to contraband); Hutcherson v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 381 N.E.2d 877, reh. den. (1978) 382 N.E.2d 983 (defendants attempted flight); Mills v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 379 N.E.2d 1023 (incriminating paraphernalia linked to defendant); Moss v. Sta......
-
Cook v. State
...389; Zwick v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 302, 236 N.E.2d 26; State v. Gilbert (1966), 247 Ind. 544, 219 N.E.2d 892; Hutcherson v. State (1978), Ind.App. , 382 N.E.2d 983; Rose v. State (1976), 168 Ind.App. 674, 345 N.E.2d 257. The obvious purpose of the language of the statute is to thwart the ......