Court Opinion

ID: 9738708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:01:18.660009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:08.036306
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion.
Jackson, J. — I cannot agree with the majority opinion herein and dissent thereto for the reason that it is admitted that the appellant obtained paregoric from the Deeg Drug Store in Evansville, Indiana, under an assumed name which was known by the druggist to be false. From the record it appears that the proprietor, at the time of such sale, knew the appellant and knew his correct name, the circumstances of the sale were such that the element of entrapment is clearly apparent.
The applicable law, Acts 1961, ch. 90, §4, p. 169, being §10-3526, Burns’ 1963 Cum. Supp., specifically *371excluding the sale of the alleged contraband narcotic from the operation thereof and permitting its sale without the necessity of a prescription, in my opinion, placed upon the seller the burden of refusing to consummate the sale thereof to a person personally known to him, who for some reason gave a name other than his own at the time of the purchase of the drug.
In my opinion the court committed error in overruling the motion to quash and in overruling the motion for a new trial.
The cause should be reversed and remanded with instructions to sustain the motion for a new trial.
Myers, J., concurs.
Note. — Reported in 198 N. E. 2d 867.