Walter E. Smith, Jr. v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 55
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Smith appeals his conviction for dealing in cocaine as a Class A felony.
- Stop on I-70 of a U-Haul driven by Smith occurred for unsafe lane movement; K-9 Shadow indicated on the vehicle.
- Officers obtained a telephonic search warrant for the U-Haul after the dog sniff; items existed in U-Haul and cocaine bricks were found.
- The U-Haul was moved to a Wal-Mart lot for safety; evidence of cocaine was seized and later admitted at trial.
- Smith moved for a speedy trial under Criminal Rule 4(B) and for suppression of evidence; suppression denial and trial proceeded; Smith was convicted and sentence imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presumption of innocence instruction proper? | Smith (Robey) argues need for explicit presumption instruction. | Smith contends tendered Robey instruction necessary. | Instruction not required; current instructions cover presumption. |
| Discharge under Criminal Rule 4(B) due to scheduling? | Smith argues delay violated 70-day rule. | State contends delays attributable to Smith; trial court did not abuse discretion. | No discharge; delays attributed to defense deposition scheduling and trial readiness. |
| Admission of cocaine evidence tied to stop? | Evidence should be excluded if stop lacked basis. | Search warrant and stop supported; evidence admissible. | Cocaine evidence admissible; stop and warrant supported by probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robey v. State, 454 N.E.2d 1221 (Ind. 1983) (presumption of innocence instruction standards)
- Simpson v. State, 915 N.E.2d 511 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (affirmed when instruction covered Robey principles)
- Lee v. State, 964 N.E.2d 859 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (instruction adequacy when presumption emphasized)
- McKay v. State, 714 N.E.2d 1182 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (speedy-trial timing; required consistency in position)
- Navarro v. State, 855 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (stop for unsafe lane movement; dog sniff permissible)
- Britt v. State, 810 N.E.2d 1077 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (probable cause standard for warrants; deferential magistrate review)