State v. Doane, 1--273A41
| Decision Date | 31 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 1--273A41,1--273A41 |
| Citation | 299 N.E.2d 185 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chuck DOANE, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Malcolm H. Aukerman, Pros. Atty., Charles J. Eusey, Deputy Pros. Atty., Newport, for appellant.
N. George Nasser, Terre Haute, for appellee.
The State is appealing the quashing of an indictment which charged Doane with possession of 'a dangerous drug, to wit: amphetamine.' The judgment of the trial court in sustaining the motion to quash appears to be based on the theory that amphetamine does not come within the purview view of IC 16--6--8--2(J), Ind.Ann.Stat. § 35--3332(j).
The appropriate sections of that statute, as it read at the time of the offense, defined a dangerous drug as:
'(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) * * *
(4) * * *
(5) any drug appearing on the consolidated list of DACA drugs compiled in compliance with the drug abuse control amendments of 21 U.S.C., sec. 321 subsec. (v) (F.C.A., tit. 21 § 321(v)), P.L. 89--74, sec. 3(a), or any supplement thereof.'
In view of the result reached it shall be necessary to discuss but one issue. Narrowly stated, that issue is whether amphetamine is defined as a dangerous drug.
We are of the opinion that the trial court erred in failing to take judicial notice of the content of the federal law, referred to in IC 16--6--8--2(J), Ind.Ann.Stat. § 35--3332(j), (Burns 1971), in ruling upon the motion to quash. See Skaggs v. State (1973) Ind., 293 N.E.2d 781.
Judgment reversed and remanded for further action consistent with this opinion.
HOFFMAN, C.J., by designation, concurs.
On Petition for Rehearing
Doane's Petition for Rehearing raises a question regarding an earlier ruling of this Court which sustained his Motion to Dismiss because the Attorney General had not joined in the appeal. The question was subsequently rendered moot when the Attorney General successfully...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Doane
...to understand its provisions.' The State appealed this ruling and the Court of Appeals, First District, issued an opinion found at 299 N.E.2d 185, in which it held that the trial court erred in granting the motion on the grounds that the State statute contains within it, in subsections (1) ......
-
State v. Market, 1--473A68
...Ind.Ann.Stat. § 35--3332(j), (Burns 1972). The trial court erred. Skaggs v. State (1973), Ind., 293 N.E.2d 781; State v. Doane (1973), Ind.Ct. of App., 299 N.E.2d 185; LaDuron v. State (1973), Ind.Ct. of App., 299 N.E.2d In view of the result reached other errors raised need not be discusse......
-
State v. Cline, 1--473A67
...(1973), Ind.Ct.App., 299 N.E.2d 227, 301 N.E.2d 521 amphetamines were held to be dangerous drugs as a matter of law. In State v. Doane (1973), Ind.Ct.App., 299 N.E.2d 185, in a situation nearly identical to that in the case at bar, it was stated that the trial court erred in failing to take......