Skaggs v. State, No. 1171S343

Docket NºNo. 1171S343
Citation260 Ind. 180, 293 N.E.2d 781
Case DateMarch 29, 1973
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 781

293 N.E.2d 781
260 Ind. 180
Louis SKAGGS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 1171S343.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
March 29, 1973.

[260 Ind. 181]

Page 782

Malcolm G. Montgomery, Evansville, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Mark Peden, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

GIVAN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a conviction of violation of the Indiana Dangerous Drug Act. Appellant was sentenced to the Indiana Reformatory for an indeterminate period of one to ten years.

The record reveals the following evidence:

Roger Karch, an elementary school art teacher, testified that prior to July 31, 1970, he volunteered to do undercover drug work for the Evansville Police Department. Karch was instructed that the could use marijuana from time to time to maintain his cover.

On July 31, 1970, Karch went to Haynie's Corner in Evansville where he contacted a 12 year old boy and indicated to him that he wanted some 'speed.' The boy told him that Louis Skaggs, the appellant herein, would sell him 'speed.' The 12 year old boy and an older boy took Karch to a house where [260 Ind. 182] the appellant was living. At about 1::00 P.M. Karch and one of the boys went to the door and knocked. A man subsequently identified as the appellant answered the door. The boy told the appellant that Karch wanted four 'speed' capsules. Appellant went inside the house and returned with four capsules. Karch gave the appellant $4 in exchange for the capsules. Karch returned to his home and placed the four capsules in a container with a note telling where, when and from whom they were purchased. The

Page 783

next evening Karch gave the four capsules in the container with the note to Sgt. Chaffin of the Evansville Police Department, who in turn took them to the Indiana State Police lab where the capsules were analyzed and found to contain amphetamines. They were further identified as a Strassenburg product called bi-phetamine which contains 12 1/2 milligrams of amphetamine.

Appellant's fiancee, Judy Peck, testified that she and appellant were living together, and that during the night in question she did not hear anyone come to the door. She admitted, however, on cross-examination that she might have been in the bathroom and unable to hear a knock at the door.

The appellant testified that he had a prescription for 20 milligram bi-phetamine capsules but had no prescription for the 12 1/2 milligram capsules.

Appellant also stated that Karch did not come to his door on July 31, 1970.

During the course of the trial the Evansville Courier contained an article concerning the trial. The court bailiff testified that he took a copy of the paper containing the article into the jury room. Five of the jurors stated that they had seen the article, and three of the five stated they had read it. Apparently the only thing stated in the article which had not been placed before the jury in evidence was a statement by Karch that the reason he volunteered to do undercover work [260 Ind. 183] for the police was that 'he thought it was the moral thing to do.'

Appellant first argues that the verdict of the jury was not sustained by sufficient evidence. It is appellant's claim that the State failed to introduce evidence of probative value that amphetamine is on the list of drugs compiled in accordance with 21 U.S.C. § 321(V). (Now 21 U.S.C. § 812).

Burns' Ind.Stat.Ann., 1972 Supp., § 35--3332(j), IC 1971, 16--6--8--2, reads as follows:

'(j) 'Dangerous drug' means (1) any drug the label of which is required by federal law to bear the statement: 'Caution: Federal law prohibits dispensing without a prescription'; (2) any drug which, because of its toxicity or other potentiality for harmful effect, or the method of its use, or the collateral measures necessary to its use, is not safe for use except under the supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to prescribe or administer such drug; or (3) a new drug which is limited by an effective application under state law to use under the professional supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to prescribe or administer such drug; (4) any hallucinogenic, psychedelic, psychogenic drug or substance including but not limited to cannabis or lysergic acid diethylamide, commonly know as LSD; or (5) any drug appearing on the lists of drugs under schedules I, II, III and IV of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. sec. 812, Pub.L. no. 91--513, sec. 202(c), and any drugs included therein by duly promulgated regulation; (6) any substance which the state board of pharmacy, after reasonable notice and hearing, shall by promulgated rule determine has qualities similar to that of any dangerous drug.'

It is true the State...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Ballard v. State, No. 1174S224
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 12, 1974
    ...and was subjected to cross-examination. See, Hall v. State, (1972) Ind., 284 N.E.2d 758 (analogous facts); Skaggs v. State, (1973) Ind., 293 N.E.2d 781; Wolfe v. State, (1928) 200 Ind. 557, 159 N.E. 545; Carlile v. State, (1973) Ind.App., 303 N.E.2d 303; Arnold v. State, (1973) Ind.App., 30......
  • Ballard v. State, No. 2--273A37
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 18, 1974
    ...and was subjected to cross-examination. See, Hall v. State, (1972) Ind., 284 N.E.2d 758 (analogous facts); Skaggs v. State, (1973) Ind., 293 N.E.2d 781; Wolfe v. State, (1928) 200 Ind. 557, 159 N.E. 545; Carlile v. State, (1973) Ind.App., 303 N.E.2d 303; Arnold v. State, (1973) Ind.App., 30......
  • Patterson v. State, No. 275S34
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 18, 1975
    ...statements violated the traditional hearsay rule in Indiana, as such rule was regarded prior to Skaggs v. State (1973), Ind., 293 N.E.2d 781. By dicta, we had previously stated that the primary reason for excluding hearsay is because of its insusceptibility to the test of cross-examination.......
  • Ludlow v. State, No. 2-573A110
    • United States
    • October 30, 1973
    ...direct testimony that methamphetamine was listed on said Schedule II, the court could take judicial notice of it. Skaggs v. State, Ind., 293 N.E.2d 781 Careful consideration of these assertions of the Appellant demonstrate they are without merit. Since no reversible error has been demonstra......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • Ballard v. State, No. 1174S224
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 12, 1974
    ...and was subjected to cross-examination. See, Hall v. State, (1972) Ind., 284 N.E.2d 758 (analogous facts); Skaggs v. State, (1973) Ind., 293 N.E.2d 781; Wolfe v. State, (1928) 200 Ind. 557, 159 N.E. 545; Carlile v. State, (1973) Ind.App., 303 N.E.2d 303; Arnold v. State, (1973) Ind.App., 30......
  • Ballard v. State, No. 2--273A37
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 18, 1974
    ...and was subjected to cross-examination. See, Hall v. State, (1972) Ind., 284 N.E.2d 758 (analogous facts); Skaggs v. State, (1973) Ind., 293 N.E.2d 781; Wolfe v. State, (1928) 200 Ind. 557, 159 N.E. 545; Carlile v. State, (1973) Ind.App., 303 N.E.2d 303; Arnold v. State, (1973) Ind.App., 30......
  • Patterson v. State, No. 275S34
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 18, 1975
    ...statements violated the traditional hearsay rule in Indiana, as such rule was regarded prior to Skaggs v. State (1973), Ind., 293 N.E.2d 781. By dicta, we had previously stated that the primary reason for excluding hearsay is because of its insusceptibility to the test of cross-examination.......
  • Ludlow v. State, No. 2-573A110
    • United States
    • October 30, 1973
    ...direct testimony that methamphetamine was listed on said Schedule II, the court could take judicial notice of it. Skaggs v. State, Ind., 293 N.E.2d 781 Careful consideration of these assertions of the Appellant demonstrate they are without merit. Since no reversible error has been demonstra......
  • 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