Katner v. State

Decided September 20, 1995

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1995-09-20

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“While the presence of the cocaine residue in the glass tube was sufficient to support Katner's possession conviction, his possession of the substance in his automobile did not constitute `transportation' of cocaine for the purpose of possessing the drug.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Serrano v. State

Relies on Katner v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-09-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Antonio Hughley v. State of Indiana, The Consolidated City of Indianapolis/Marion County, and The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (2014), Adams v. State (2012)

30 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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SULLIVAN, Justice,

¶1dissenting.

¶2While we may find it unduly harsh to subject a driver with a small amount of cocaine in his pocket to forfeiture of his automobile, I believe that is clearly what the legislature has authorized. The presence of the cocaine in Mr. Katner's pocket constituted the commission of Possession of Cocaine and his driving his automobile under such cireumstances therefore constituted the use of the vehicle to facilitate the transportation of cocaine for the purpose of possessing it. As such, forfeiture is available. Ind.Code § 34-4-830.1-1(a)(1)(A)(vi).

¶3I would affirm the trial court's forfeiture order in this case for the reasons set forth in Chief Judge Sharpnack's dissenting opinion in this case in the Court of Appeals. See Katner v. State (1994), Ind.App., 640 N.E.2d 388, 391 (Sharpnack, C.J., dissenting).