Title: State v. Jennings

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

317 N.E.2d 446 (1974)
STATE of Indiana, Appellant (Plaintiff below),
v.
Martin Eugene JENNINGS, Appellee (Defendant below).
No. 174S17.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
October 16, 1974.
Rehearing Denied January 6, 1975.
*447 Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., John H. Meyers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellant.
John G. Bunner, John F. Davis, Evansville, for appellee.
HUNTER, Justice.
This is an appeal by the State of Indiana following the trial court's dismissal of an affidavit charging the appellee with possession of marijuana. The trial court dismissed the charge on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, and this Court entertains jurisdiction pursuant to AP. 4(A)(5). Appellee's motion to dismiss was grounded on the contention that "at the time of the commission of the alleged offense, there was no statute of the State of Indiana making it criminal to possess or sell marijuana." We affirm.
The State concedes that at the time of filing the charging affidavit, there was no criminal statute in effect making the possession of marijuana a crime.[1] However, the State urges that because the Board of Pharmacy, pursuant to its rule-making power, had declared marijuana to be a dangerous drug, it follows that this determination is sufficient to support the charging affidavit. We disagree.
The trial court properly dismissed the affidavit for lack of jurisdiction. There being no statutory offense alleged, it was incumbent on the State to allege that the appellee violated the promulgated rule of the Board of Pharmacy. Thus, violation of the rule was the only basis upon which appellee could be charged. Yet, nowhere in the record before us does the Board of Pharmacy rule appear. The affidavit was clearly defective in that it alleged no criminal offense.
Judgment affirmed.
DeBRULER and PRENTICE, JJ., concur.
GIVAN, J., dissents with opinion in which ARTERBURN, C.J., concurs.
GIVAN Justice (dissenting).
I cannot agree with the majority opinion in this case.
The appellant was charged in the Vanderburgh Circuit Court by affidavit which reads as follows:
The statute to which the indictment refers is IC 16-6-8-2(j) which reads as follows:
At the time of the appellee's arrest, the possession of marijuana was unlawful in Indiana by reason of the existence of Rule 27 of the Indiana Board of Pharmacy, which was adopted on the 26th day of June, 1973, which rule reads in part as follows:
21 U.S.C. § 812(c), Schedule I(c), in pertinent part reads as follows:
The appellee in this case raises the question that the above quoted Rule 27 of the Indiana Board of Pharmacy was not properly promulgated. The record in this case is totally silent as to whether such question was raised at the trial level and whether or not there was any finding as to the proper promulgation of the above rule.
In the case at bar the trial court sustained a motion to dismiss the affidavit. This was done in the face of an existing rule purporting verity, which rule was specifically authorized by statute in full force and effect at the time.
It is the position of this writer the trial court erred in dismissing the action in the absence of a challenge to the rule or the statute under which it was adopted.
This case should be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings if there is to be a challenge to the statute and rule such matter should be addressed to the trial court and disposed of at a proper hearing at that level.
[1]  Previous subsections of the Dangerous Drug Act were repealed by Public Law 144 on July 26, 1973. The Controlled Substances Act, Public Law 335, did not become law until its stated effective date of October 1, 1973.