Williford v. State
| Decision Date | 11 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 17A03-9012-CR-525,17A03-9012-CR-525 |
| Citation | 577 N.E.2d 963 |
| Parties | Robert T. WILLIFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Appeal from DeKalb Circuit Court; Paul R. Cherry, Judge.
C.C. Rhetts Jr., DeKalb County Public Defender, Auburn, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, State Atty. Gen. and Arthur Thaddeus Perry, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant Williford was convicted of dealing in marijuana within 1000 feet of school property, a Class C felony, pursuant to I.C. 35-48-4-10. The Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the conviction. Williford v. State (1991), Ind.App., 571 N.E.2d 310. The majority of this Court has concluded that transfer should be denied. I disagree.
The delivery of marijuana is a Class A misdemeanor, but delivery of marijuana within 1000 feet of a school is a Class C felony. The Class C felony exists as a deterrent to those who would deal in marijuana around schools and thereby endanger school children. The dealing statute provides that it is a Class A misdemeanor to "knowingly or intentionally" deliver marijuana, and that:
(b) The offense is:
....
(2) a Class C felony if:
....
(B) The person:
(i) Delivered [ ]
....
marijuana ... within one thousand (1,000) feet of school property....
Over objection, the trial court instructed the jury that the State was not required to prove that Williford knew he was within 1000 feet of school property when he delivered the marijuana. The facts of the case showed that Williford sold a quarter-ounce of marijuana in the Four Crowns Tavern, which was situated less than 1000 feet from the McIntosh School. The Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction on the Class C felony.
The Court of Appeals turned to the federal law and the law of sister states in resolving Williford's claim that the trial court had been in error in giving the aforementioned jury instruction. This, I believe, was unfortunate as, unlike those jurisdictions, Indiana has a special statute and case law surrounding it, which together with the statute defining the offense of dealing quoted above, govern the resolution of this claim. That special statute is I.C. 35-41-2-2 and subsection (d) thereof, which is particularly pertinent here provides:
Unless the statute defining the offense provides otherwise, if a kind of culpability is required for commission of an offense, it is required with respect to every material element of the prohibited conduct.
In light of this culpability statute and the substantive criminal statute defining the offense of dealing in marijuana, the essential legal question posed by this case is whether or not knowledge that a school is in close proximity when a delivery is made is a "material element of the prohibited conduct." I conclude that it is.
The last provision of the substantive statute defining the Class C felony includes a full description of the forbidden conduct, in the following manner, "(b) the offense is ... (2) a Class C felony if: ... (B) the person delivered marijuana ... within one thousand (1000) feet of school property[.]" In Armour v. State (1985), Ind., 479 N.E.2d 1294, we dealt with the neglect statute, I.C. 35-46-1-4, which provides as follows:
A person ... who knowingly or intentionally ... places the dependent in a situation that may endanger his life or health; ... commits neglect[.]
There we held that, in addition to the proof of a knowing or intentional act of placing the dependent in a particular location and situation, the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge of a high probability of resulting danger to the dependent. In Howard v. State (1985), Ind., 481 N.E.2d 1315, this Court was confronted with a conviction for neglect wherein a pair of two-year-old children were put in a bathtub of extremely hot bath water, resulting in severe burns to one of them. There we explained that the evidence was sufficient because it showed that the defendant had "plac[ed] [the] children in a tub and le[ft] them there while knowing that very hot water was supplied to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schnitz v. State
...argument, Schnitz asks us to revisit our decision in Williford v. State (1991), Ind.App., 571 N.E.2d 310, trans. denied, 577 N.E.2d 963 (DeBruler, J., dissenting). In Williford, we held that the State need not prove any mens rea to increase a dealing offense from a Class B felony to a Class......
-
Polk v. State
...children from the perils of drug trafficking. Williford v. State, 571 N.E.2d 310 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied by Williford v. State, 577 N.E.2d 963 (Ind.1991) addressed the issue we eventually conclusively resolved in Walker: whether the defendant must know he or she was within 1000 fee......
-
Steelman v. State
...further urges this court to reconsider our opinion in Williford v. State (1991), Ind.App., 571 N.E.2d 310, trans. denied, 577 N.E.2d 963 (DeBruler, J., dissenting). In that case, Williford sold a quarter ounce of marijuana to an undercover police officer in the Four Crowns Tavern in Auburn,......