Manuel v. State
| Decision Date | 30 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 1076S357,1076S357 |
| Citation | 370 N.E.2d 904,267 Ind. 436 |
| Parties | Joe MANUEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, David P. Freund, Bobby Jay Small, and Lawrence D. Giddings, Deputy Public Defenders, Jerrilee P. Sutherlin, Research Asst., Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Alembert W. Brayton, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
The appellant was charged with unlawful dealing in marijuana as defined in IC 1971, 35-24.1-4.1-10. After conviction he was sentenced to a determinate period of twelve years. The record shows the following facts: On July 30, 1975, an Indiana State Police undercover narcotics agent met with a police informant and one, Bill Slagle, to arrange a marijuana purchase. After negotiating a price the agent and the informant left to obtain the narcotics money. Slagle went to appellant Manuel's house to await the return of the buyers with the money. When the agent and the informant arrived at the Manuel residence, Slagle and Manuel walked to the car whereupon the agent gave Slagle $350.00. As they left the car and walked toward the back of the house, Slagle gave the money to Manuel. A few minutes later the two returned to the car and Manuel gave the agent a bag containing about two pounds of marijuana. Slagle and Manuel thereupon were arrested and charged.
Appellant claims the trial court erred in permitting Slagle to testify as to conversations with the informant relating to setting up the purchase. If we assume for the sake of argument that this testimony was in fact hearsay and inadmissible, any error committed in that regard is not reversible in this case for the reason that Slagle was permitted to give additional testimony without objection concerning the exact transaction of the purchase of the marijuana. The fact that this unrefuted testimony came in without objection on the same general subject matter of the hearsay testimony renders any error in that regard harmless. Walker v. State, (1976) Ind., 349 N.E.2d 161.
Appellant also claims the trial court erred in permitting the State to introduce testimony of other drug transactions made by the appellant. It is well settled law that evidence of criminal activities apart from the specific crime charged is inadmissible on the question of guilt if the evidence is irrelevant or produced merely to show the defendant's unsavory character or tendency to commit certain types of crimes. Kerlin v. State, (1970) 255 Ind. 420, 265 N.E.2d 22; Meeks v. State, (1968)249 Ind. 659, 234 N.E.2d 629. The evidence will also be excluded if it misleads the jury or serves no purpose other than to prejudice the defendant in the eyes of the jury. Lawrence v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 306, 286 N.E.2d 830. However evidence of other criminal activity may be admitted to show intent, purpose, identification or common...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sweet v. State
...of evidence of a defendant's prior drug dealings to show a common scheme or plan to engage in drug peddling is proper. Manuel v. State (1977) 267 Ind. 436, 370 N.E.2d 904. See also, Haynes v. State (1980), Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 659; Perry v. State, (1980), Ind.App. , 393 N.E.2d Gaines v. Sta......
-
Haynes v. State
...may be made an issue and thus admissible: (1) to show a common plan, scheme, or design of drug selling; Manuel v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 436, 438, 370 N.E.2d 904, 906; Perry v. State (1979), Ind.App., 393 N.E.2d 204, 207; (2) to show the defendant's motive or guilty knowledge; Coker v. Stat......
-
Ingle v. State
...a common scheme or plan to the charge of Conspiracy to Deliver Marijuana. Willis v. State (1977), Ind., 370 N.E.2d 906; Manuel v. State (1977), Ind., 370 N.E.2d 904. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS Ingle argues the police failed to establish a proper chain of custody of the marijuana found at his resi......
-
Gaston v. State
...1088. Evidence of prior criminal activity may be an issue if such evidence (1) shows a common scheme or plan, Manuel v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 436, 370 N.E.2d 904, 906; (2) establishes the defendant's guilty knowledge or motive, Coker v. State, supra, at 860; (3) shows a witness was under t......