Taflinger v. State
Decision Date | 30 December 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 2--473A105,2--473A105 |
Citation | 320 N.E.2d 775,162 Ind.App. 644 |
Parties | Connie Jo TAFLINGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
John V. Hampton, Muncie, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Eric L. Wyndham, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant appeals from a sentence of imprisonment for a term of one year to ten years upon conviction by jury of sale 1 of a dangerous drug. 2 The only contentions of error relied on for reversal are (1) that evidence was erroneously admitted over defendant's objection and (2) that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict. We affirm.
The evidence discloses without conflict or question 3 that defendant gave to a State Police undercover officer a pill identical in appearance to a pill she simultaneously gave to his companion. The companion then gave his pill to the officer who put both into the same vial and was thereafter unable to distinguish one from the other.
At the time she gave these pills to the two men she identified them as 'quads' which is the street name of 'quandadil' which is another name for 'quaalude'. When defendant first offered the pills as 'quads' the trooper thought defendant meant that they were barbiturates. He did not know the difference between 'quads' and barbiturates, but knew that both were 'downers' and she had described these pills as very good downers that were out of sight and would really mess their minds up.
The trooper took both pills to his home and ran a presumptive type field test on them and got what he thought was a positive reaction for barbiturates. He then put them in a lock box and locked them in a desk to which only he had access. Later on he removed them from the desk and took them to the State Police Laboratory where he handed them over to a chemist. The chemist marked the package for identification and placed it in the evidence lockup until it could be tested, at which time he removed it and ran a test on one of the pills which definitely established that it was 'quaalude', but which also entirely consumed the pill. The other pill was untested and remained in the lockup until the chemist removed it and brought it to the trial where he identified it and it was admitted into evidence.
With respect to the pill received into evidence, the State Police chemist testified:
The chemist also testified that quaalude is not a barbiturate, that it has a completely different chemical composition, and would not give the same reaction to a field test for barbiturates. He further testified:
'
The foregoing testimony reveals that there is a possibility that the pill which was laboratory tested by the State Police chemist was not the pill given by her to the trooper's companion. There is also the possibility that even though the pill so tested was correctly identified by the chemist as quaalude the other pill was not quaalude. Those possibilities may not be too remote to create reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt in the minds of many reasonable persons. But even if that be true, the evidence of defendant's guilt is nevertheless substantial and of probative value. The rule of reasonable doubt in such cases is for the guidance of the trial judge and jury in weighing the evidence. Wincel v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 498, 500, 242 N.E.2d 508, 509, 16 Ind.Dec. 262, 263. 'This court has upon it a duty to consider, not to weigh the evidence in the case for the purpose of determining whether there is any substantial evidence of probative value from which a jury reasonably could have inferred that the appellant was guilty of the offense charged.' Robinson v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 192, 197, 184 N.E.2d 16, 18.
Whether the pill which was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Trotter v. State
...of guilt is a matter of law for the court on appeal. See Wincel v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 498, 242 N.E.2d 508; Taflinger v. State (1974), 162 Ind.App. 644, 320 N.E.2d 775. That is to say, the trier of fact must be convinced of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the fac......