161 Ind. App. 568 - White v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2007
14 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Evans v. United States · 120 Ind. App. 218 - Walton v. Wilhelm · Slettvet v. State · Edelin v. United States · Carrier v. State
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is a well-settled principle of criminal law [that] a conviction will be reversed as a matter of law if the State fails to prove an essential element of the crime. With respect to offenses involy-ing controlled substances, the State must prove, as an essential element, [that] the proscribed drug falls within the applicable statutory provision. If a drug is identified in court by a name specifically designated as a controlled substance by the Indiana Code, then the State has proven as a matter of law [that] the drug is a controlled substance. If the substance is not specifically enumerated by the Code as a controlled substance, the State must offer extrinsic evidence to prove [that] the substance falls within the Code's definition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dolkey v. State““If a drug is identified by a name which is specifically designated as a narcotic by the Act, such as heroin or morphine, a conviction may be upheld as the trial court need only refer to the exact words of the statutory definition and determine the substance is a narcotic as a matter of law.... “Similarly, if the substance, as identified, is not specifically enumerated by the Act, the State may nevertheless establish it as a legally defined narcotic drug by submitting some additional extrinsic evidence describing its chemical identity, characteristics, ingredients, or derivation so as to bring it within the Act’s definition.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ralston v. State“Moreover, judicial notice, as a general rule, is restricted to matters of common public knowledge, ... a description that does not apply to the chemistry of drugs....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Reemer v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.