Court Opinion

ID: 9737398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:24:09.520331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:58.651865
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the majority’s opinion except for its resolution of the claim discussed under the caption, “Insufficient Evidence of Dealing-in Purported Controlled Substance.”
The defendant stands convicted of Dealing in a Substance Represented to Be a Controlled Substance. Ind.Code § 35-48-4-4.5(a)(1) (1993). To secure a conviction on this charge, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally delivered or financed the delivery of a substance that, while not a controlled substance or prescription drug, was “expressly or impliedly represented to he a controlled substance.” Id. (emphasis supplied).
As the majority acknowledges, the defendant did not tell the undercover police officer that he was selling cocaine but “bogeyman,” a substance that resembles but is not cocaine. The defendant did not represent the substance to be a controlled substance. Rather, the defendant expressly represented that the substance was “bogeyman,” which is not a controlled substance. The evidence does not support conviction on this charge.
SHEPARD, C.J., concurs.