Taylor v. State, 669S129

Decision Date15 March 1971
Docket NumberNo. 669S129,669S129
Citation24 Ind.Dec. 666,256 Ind. 170,267 N.E.2d 383
PartiesMichael TAYLOR, a/k/a Carol Perice, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Charles W. Symmes, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., William F. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

DeBRULER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for possession of narcotics equipment in violation of I.C.1971, 35--24--1--2, being Burns § 10--3520(c). The trial was without jury in the Marion County Criminal Court, Division 1, and appellant was sentenced to one to five years in prison and fined $200.00.

The indictment reads as follows:

'The Grand Jury for the County of Marion in the State of Indiana, upon their oath do present that MICHAEL TAYLOR alias CAROL PERICE on or about the 9th day of OCTOBER, A.D. 1968, at and in the County of Marion and in the State of Indiana, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously possess and have under his control certain instruments, (sic) to-wit: an eye-dropper, needle, syringe and bottle cap with intent to unlawfully administer and use narcotic drugs, which said instruments were then and there adapted for the use of narcotic drugs by injection in a human being, then and there being. * * *'

Under this indictment appellee was required to introduce evidence on each of the following elements:

(1) Appellant had possession of certain instruments, namely, an eye-dropper, needle, syringe and bottle cap;

(2) These instruments were adapted for the use of narcotic drugs by injection in a human being; and

(3) Appellant possessed those instruments with the intent to unlawfully administer and use narcotic drugs.

Appellant's sole contention on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the trial court finding that appellant possessed the instruments with intent to unlawfully administer narcotic drugs.

In reviewing the allegation of insufficient evidence this Court will not weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility of witnesses, but will look to that evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom which support the finding of the trial court. Asher v. State (1969), Ind., 244 N.E.2d 89. The conviction will be affirmed if from that viewpoint there is evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith v. State (1970), Ind., 260 N.E.2d 558.

The evidence which tends to support the trial court finding comes from two witnesses and is as follows:

Officer Reed Moistner, Indianapolis Police Department, testified that on October 9, 1968, he observed appellant shoplift some clothes in Block's Department Store. Appellant, a male, was dressed as a female and carried a leather purse. Moistner arrested appellant for shoplifting and in searching the purse appellant was carrying he found the following items: a hypodermic type needle, an eye-dropper covered with an unknown sticky substance, a bottle cap that had been burned on the bottom, and an empty Excedrin bottle. This officer stated that appellant was known to him as an addict, the basis of such knowledge being some unspecified 'record'.

Lieutenant Jones, in charge of the Narcotics Section of the Indianapolis Police Department, testified that he had had extensive training and experience over the last twelve years in the investigation of narcotics cases, including training at the Federal Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement Training School in Washington, D.C. Lt. Jones said the needle, eye-dropper and bottle cap are called an 'outfit' on the street and that he had seen those same three items many times in the possession of drug addicts. The eye-dropper is placed over one end of the hypodermic needle, the drug is melted in the bottle cap held over a flame, hence the burn marks on the cap. The rubber syringe like part of the eye-dropper is used to draw the melted substance up into the needle and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Cooper v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • November 30, 1976
    ...490; Dabner v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 179, 279 N.E.2d 797; Stevens v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 386, 275 N.E.2d 12; Taylor v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 170, 267 N.E.2d 383; Von Hauger v. State (1971), 255 Ind. 666, 266 N.E.2d 197; Bradley v. State (1972), 153 Ind.App. 421, 287 N.E.2d 759; Sargent......
  • Bradley v. State, 2--572A3
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 10, 1972
    ...being; and 3) That Bradley possessed these instruments with the intent to unlawfully administer and use narcotic drugs. Taylor v. State (Ind.1971), 267 N.E.2d 383; Von Hauger v. State (Ind.1971), 266 N.E.2d It is uncontested that the evidence presented by the State proved the existence of t......
  • Berry v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 3, 1972
    ...beyond a reasonable doubt. Coleman v. State (1971), Ind., 275 N.E.2d 786; Gibson v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 706; Taylor v. State (1971), Ind., 267 N.E.2d 383. In the instant case, the evidence most favorable to the State reveals the On the evening of August 3, 1971, Mrs. Gertrude Gad......
  • Doswell v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 4, 1983
    ...On Uniform State Laws. As noted infra, some other States have adopted versions of it.5 Appellant's reliance on Taylor v. State, 256 Ind. 170, 267 N.E.2d 383 (1971) is misplaced. In no way does that case stand for the proposition he asserts. Taylor's conviction was reversed because there was......
  • 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