Opinion ID: 2031728
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: First, Defendant argues that it was incumbent upon the State to show that the substance sold by him, heroin, was one listed in Schedule I, Ind. Code § 35-48-2-4, and that it had failed to submit such evidence. Initially we note that Defendant has failed to show any possible harm which he could have incurred by this omission. Secondly, we note that the inclusion of heroin in Schedule I was put in evidence during the cross-examination of a defense witness. Defendant next argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the confiscated substance contained heroin. We find no merit in this argument. Two (2) separate tests were performed upon the substance contained in each packet and all test results were positive for the presence of heroin. Defendant argues that the State must prove that the substance confiscated contained a sufficient amount of a controlled substance in order that the probability of experimental error in testing is not significant. We are aware of no authority, nor does Defendant refer us to any, which supports his proposition that the tests utilized do not provide scientifically reliable data when performed upon small quantities of substance such as those involved in this case. The sole authority presented by Defendant upon this issue is Releford v. State, (1975) 163 Ind. App. 534, 325 N.E.2d 214, in which the Court of Appeals held: The fact that the percentage of heroin was or could have been very low does not alter the fact that the tests were conclusive as to the presence of heroin and that the substance seized was possessed and sold by [the defendant]. 163 Ind. App. at 538-39, 325 N.E.2d at 217. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.