Court Opinion

ID: 9703445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:56:55.441363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:49.137760
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Hoffman, C.J.
Defendant-appellant Jules F. LaDuron, in his petition for rehearing, has advanced the following argument:
“The decision relies on a statute that was not in effect when this case arose in December, 1970 — i.e. § 35-3332(j) (5) as quoted in the decision.
“The decision relies on Schedule III of 21 USC § 812 to hold that the pills in question were dangerous drugs; but Schedule III of 21 USC § 812 was not incorporated into the Indiana Dangerous Drug Act until 1971. This case arose in December, 1970.”
An examination of the opinion handed down by this court on July 31, 1973, to which LaDuron makes reference discloses that an amendatory Act was cited which was not in effect during December, 1970. Such Act was cited as IC 1971, 16-6-8-2, Ind. Ann. Stat. § 35-3332 (Burns Cum. Supp. 1972).
*198However, Acts 1969, ch. 225, § 2(j) (5) which was in effect throughout 1970 was, at that time, applicable and reads as follows:
“J. ‘Dangerous drug’ means * * * (5) any drug appearing on the consolidated list of DACA drugs compiled in compliance with the drug abuse control amendments of 21 U.S.C., sec. 321, subsec. (v), P.L. 89-74, sec. 3(a), or any supplement thereof.”
Accordingly, the drugs in question which contained barbiturates and amphetamines appear on the consolidated list of DACA drugs referred to by the statutory provision, quoted immediately above.
These statutory and argumentative substitutions do not render inaccurate the conclusion stated in the opinion of this court that “[t]he drugs sold by Dr. LaDuron to Vandelene were, as a matter of law, dangerous drugs.”
LaDuron remains unaided by this error. With the exception of the above stated allegation of error, appellant’s petition for rehearing is hereby denied.
Rehearing denied.
Sharp and Staton, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported at 301 N.E.2d 521.