Reiff v. State, 1069S222

Decision Date08 March 1971
Docket NumberNo. 1069S222,1069S222
Citation267 N.E.2d 184,24 Ind.Dec. 678,256 Ind. 105
PartiesJames S. REIFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

George P. Roberts, South Bend, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., David S. Wedding, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

GIVAN, Judge.

The appellant was tried and convicted by a jury on two counts of the crime of sale of dangerous drugs. He was sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for not less than one nor more than ten years on each count.

The record in the case discloses the following facts:

The appellant is a doctor of osteopathy. The main prosecuting witness in this case was an eighteen year old high school student, who testified that on numerous occasions he had gone to the appellant's office and purchased various pills, which the evidence disclosed contained dangerous drugs as defined by the statute. The witness testified that he first purchased pills from the appellant as early as September, 1967. On his first purchase he obtained two boxes, each of which contained from 20 to 40 green and white pills. A few days later he returned to appellant's office and purchased additional pills. He testified that from October, 1967, to February, 1968, he visited appellant's office on four or five occasions and each time obtained pills. In October of 1967 he purchased over 300 pills at one time from the appellant. Sometimes the appellant wrote instructions on the boxes to take one every day at 10:00 A.M. The witness stated that the appellant told him he did that so the witness would not get in trouble if he got picked up. The witness obtained about 300 pills a month from the appellant, and at one time together with another witness the witness gave the appellant marijuana in exchange for pills. In February of 1968 the appellant gave the witness pills but told him it would be the last time for a while because 'the heat was on.' However, the witness did receive numerous amphetamine pills from the appellant between March, 1968, and May 16, 1968.

In May, 1968, the witness working with police officers purchased 1,000 pills from the appellant for $60. The appellant poured the pills from a bottle into a small gym bag which the witness was carrying. An analysis of these pills showed them to contain amphetamines and barbiturates as well as other dangerous drugs.

A 21 year old college student also testified on behalf of the state and verified much of the testimony given by the high school student, including the giving of marijuana to the appellant in exchange for drugs and the purchase of dangerous drugs from the appellant under assumed names.

Appellant first claims error in the overruling of his motion for a psychiatric examination of the eighteen year old high school student, who was the main prosecuting witness. Appellant cites as authority for his position the case of Antrobus v. State (1970), Ind., 254 N.E.2d 873, 20 Ind.Dec. 164. Although this Court did in Antrobus hold that it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse to grant psychiatric examination of the prosecuting witness, the factual situation in that case differed greatly from the facts in the case at bar. In Antrobus the witness for whom the psychiatric examination was requested was an accomplice in the crime charged. He was the only witness at the trial whose testimony connected the appellants to the crime. In the case at bar the witness for whom the examination was requested was the state's principal witness, but was by no means the only witness who testified against the appellant. The college student verified many of the things the high school student testified to and Police Lieutenant Edward L. Burke testified to facts which directly connected the appellant with the sale of drugs to the high school student. In fact, the appellant himself testified that he sold pills to both the high school and the college student under false names, but attempted to justify the sale on the ground that he was treating both witnesses as patients. In Antrobus the witness had a history of mental disturbances, including hospitalization in a psychiatric ward. There was no such evidence regarding the witness in the case at bar. In Antrobus the witness was being used as a prosecuting witness in 19 pending cases, had attempted suicide, had attacked a police officer with a knife and was alleged to be a psychopathic liar. None of these factual situations are alleged to have existed with regard to the witness in the case at bar. It should be pointed out that this Court in Antrobus stated: 'Due to the nature of the objection to the witness' competency in this case, an examination * * * would necessarily include an examination of the witness by a psychiatrist.' (254 N.E.2d at p. 881.)

By...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • McNeely v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 22, 1976
    ...to grant a psychiatric examination rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Our Supreme Court, in Reiff v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 105, 108, 267 N.E.2d 184, 185, in discussing Antrobus, 'By making the above statement in Antrobus this Court did not mean to imply that every time a......
  • Chadwick v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • May 12, 1977
    ...necessitates examination of the witness by a psychiatrist. Antrobus v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 420, 254 N.E.2d 873. In Reiff v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 105, 267 N.E.2d 184, this Court made clear that Antrobus was not meant to imply that every request for psychiatric examination of a witness m......
  • Gosnell v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1978
    ...discretion in disposing of petitions of this kind and will be reversed only if it has clearly abused that discretion. Reiff v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 105, 267 N.E.2d 184; Wedmore v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 212, 143 N.E.2d Appellant's petition requested that the witness be ordered to submit t......
  • Liddle v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1973
    ...237 Ind. 212, 143 N.E.2d 649, and Antrobus v. State (1970), 253 Ind. 420, 254 N.E.2d 873, 20 Ind.Dec. 164. In Reiff v. State (1971), Ind., 267 N.E.2d 184, 185, 24 Ind.Dec. 678, 680, this Court 'By making the above statement in Antrobus this Court did not mean to imply that every time a defe......
  • 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