Stuart Bookwalter v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 598
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On Jan. 17, 2013 Lafayette police, acting on a confidential informant tip, followed Stuart Bookwalter from Illinois to a campground in Lafayette.
- Bookwalter met Troy Cudworth and texted an offer of heroin; the two were preparing to inject when officers approached and arrested them.
- A vehicle search recovered ~18 grams of heroin and several syringes; a search of Bookwalter’s person produced an eyeglasses case with items used to consume heroin.
- Bookwalter was charged with Dealing in a Narcotic Drug (Class A felony), Possession of a Narcotic Drug (Class C), Possession of a Syringe (under the Indiana Legend Drug Act, Class D), and Possession of Paraphernalia (misdemeanor); he was also alleged to be a habitual substance offender.
- A jury convicted on all counts; Bookwalter admitted habitual-substance-offender status and received an aggregate 23-year sentence.
- On appeal the court affirmed the dealing conviction, reversed possession-of-syringe (statutory ambiguity/vagueness re: intent), and vacated the possession conviction on double-jeopardy grounds (as a lesser-included offense of dealing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Possession of a Syringe (I.C. §16-42-19-18) | State: syringes and admissions that Bookwalter intended to inject show intent to violate the Legend Drug Act | Bookwalter: he intended to inject heroin (a narcotic), not a “legend drug,” so statute’s intent element isn’t met | Reversed — statute ambiguous; rule of lenity favors defendant because intent is expressed as intent to violate the Legend Drug Act (which targets legend drugs, insulin, steroids), not to inject heroin |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Dealing in a Narcotic Drug (I.C. §35-48-4-1) | State: possession of ~18 g and evidence of delivery to Cudworth supports intent to deliver and Class A enhancement | Bookwalter: State didn’t prove intent to deliver three or more grams specifically | Affirmed — proof that he possessed >3 g and intended to deliver some amount suffices for Class A dealing; no need to show intent to deliver a particular quantity |
| Double jeopardy: convictions for both Dealing and Possession of the same narcotic | State: (concedes) dual convictions impermissible unless quantities distinguish charges | Bookwalter: convictions violate double jeopardy because possession is a lesser-included offense of dealing | Remanded — vacate the possession conviction as it is an included lesser offense; leaving the dealing conviction and aggregate sentence intact |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Meredith v. State, 906 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. 2009) (rule of lenity and statutory interpretation principles)
- Cherry v. State, 971 N.E.2d 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (addressed sufficiency under §16-42-19-18 but did not resolve statutory-construction ambiguity)
- Quick v. State, 660 N.E.2d 598 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (possession is generally lesser-included offense of dealing; separate convictions impermissible absent quantity-based charging)
- Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2002) (actual-evidence test for double jeopardy)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (vacating lesser-included conviction can leave aggregate sentence intact)
- Mason v. State, 532 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind. 1989) (double-jeopardy principles regarding lesser-included offenses)