Patterson v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Patterson v. State

329 N.E.2d 630, 164 Ind. App. 484, 1975 Ind. App. LEXIS 1175

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 17, 1975

DocketNo. 2-974A221

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 329 N.E.2d 630 (Patterson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Patterson v. State, 329 N.E.2d 630, 164 Ind. App. 484, 1975 Ind. App. LEXIS 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Hoffman, J.

Following a trial before a jury, defendant-appellant Milton Patterson was convicted of a violation of the Indiana Controlled Substances Act.¹ Appellant’s motion to correct errors was overruled by the trial court and he perfected this appeal.

On appeal, Patterson asserts that his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence, that he was entrapped by the Indianapolis Police Department, and that a tinfoil packet should not have been admitted into evidence due to inadequate identification.

As to the evidentiary issue, an examination of the record reveals that the whereabouts of the tinfoil packet were totally accounted for from the time it was obtained from the appellant-Patterson until its introduction at trial, and that no evidence was introduced by appellant showing even a possibility of tampering during such period. Furthermore, the exhibit was identified by an officer by means of a case number which had been affixed thereto. The exhibit was, therefore, adequately identified, and a chain of custody adequately established. Bonds v. State (1973), 158 Ind. App. 579, 303 N.E.2d 686 (transfer denied).

As to the entrapment issue, inasmuch as the issue was never raised in any manner in the trial court, such issue is waived on appeal. Ervin v. State (1972), 154 Ind. App. 89, 289 N.E.2d 131.

The final question appellant has raised on appeal is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction on the ground that the jury could not have reasonably believed the prosecution witness who purchased the narcotic, in light of his history of crime, dishonesty and drug addiction. Such contention is merely a challenge to the credibility of the witness, an issue which will not be determined by this court. Freeman v. State (1975), 163 Ind. App. 650, 325 N.E.2d 485.

The judgment of conviction appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

[486]*486Staton, P.J. and Garrard, J., concur.

Note.—Reported at 329 N.E.2d 630.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hoffman, J.

Following a trial before a jury, defendant-appellant Milton Patterson was convicted of a violation of the Indiana Controlled Substances Act.¹ Appellant’s motion to correct errors was overruled by the trial court and he perfected this appeal.

On appeal, Patterson asserts that his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence, that he was entrapped by the Indianapolis Police Department, and that a tinfoil packet should not have been admitted into evidence due to inadequate identification.

As to the evidentiary issue, an examination of the record reveals that the whereabouts of the tinfoil packet were totally accounted for from the time it was obtained from the appellant-Patterson until its introduction at trial, and that no evidence was introduced by appellant showing even a possibility of tampering during such period. Furthermore, the exhibit was identified by an officer by means of a case number which had been affixed thereto. The exhibit was, therefore, adequately identified, and a chain of custody adequately established. Bonds v. State (1973), 158 Ind. App. 579, 303 N.E.2d 686 (transfer denied).

As to the entrapment issue, inasmuch as the issue was never raised in any manner in the trial court, such issue is waived on appeal. Ervin v. State (1972), 154 Ind. App. 89, 289 N.E.2d 131.

The final question appellant has raised on appeal is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction on the ground that the jury could not have reasonably believed the prosecution witness who purchased the narcotic, in light of his history of crime, dishonesty and drug addiction. Such contention is merely a challenge to the credibility of the witness, an issue which will not be determined by this court. Freeman v. State (1975), 163 Ind. App. 650, 325 N.E.2d 485.

The judgment of conviction appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

[486]*486Staton, P.J. and Garrard, J., concur.

Note.—Reported at 329 N.E.2d 630.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

329 N.E.2d 630, 164 Ind. App. 484, 1975 Ind. App. LEXIS 1175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-state-indctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack