Steelman v. State
1992 WL 309021, 602 N.E.2d 152, 1992 Ind. App. LEXIS 1593 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute enhancing the penalty for delivering illegal drugs within 1,000 feet of school property does not require the State to prove that the defendant knew they were within the protected zone; this is a strict liability element of the offense.
Facts:
- On November 26, 1990, Monte Steelman offered to sell six marijuana joints to a confidential informant, Joseph Moore.
- Police Officer Branum gave Moore $24 to make the purchase and fitted him with a listening device.
- Moore went to Steelman's second-story apartment, where he paid Steelman $24 in the kitchen.
- Steelman's wife then handed Moore a plastic bag containing six marijuana joints.
- Moore and Steelman discussed the possibility of a future, larger drug transaction.
- A Wayne County Surveyor later measured the distance from Steelman's residence to the nearby Vaile Elementary School property as 959 feet.
Procedural Posture:
- Monte Steelman was charged in an Indiana trial court with dealing in marijuana within 1,000 feet of school property, a Class C felony.
- The State also filed an information alleging Steelman was a habitual offender.
- A jury found Steelman guilty of the drug charge and adjudicated him a habitual offender.
- The trial court sentenced Steelman to four years for the drug conviction, which was enhanced by a 20-year term for the habitual offender adjudication.
- Steelman, as the appellant, appealed both his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Indiana's statute for dealing marijuana within 1,000 feet of school property require the State to prove that the defendant knew he was within the protected 1,000-foot zone at the time of the offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Baker, J.
No. The statute does not require the State to prove the defendant knew he was within the legislatively mandated "drug-free zone" surrounding schools. Reaffirming its holding in Williford v. State, the court reasoned that the legislative purpose is to protect children from the harms of illegal drugs, and a dealer's lack of knowledge about their proximity to a school does not diminish that harm. The court holds that individuals who choose to deal drugs in the vicinity of schools do so at their own peril. The court also rejected the defendant's other arguments, finding that the term "school property" was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to him, that measuring the 1,000-foot distance via a direct "line of sight" is a rational method consistent with legislative intent, and that the defendant failed to prove the statute had a racially discriminatory purpose required for an Equal Protection Clause violation.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that the location element of a school-zone drug offense in Indiana is one of strict liability. By removing the need for prosecutors to prove a defendant's mens rea (culpable mental state) regarding their proximity to a school, the court makes it significantly easier to secure sentence enhancements under this statute. This precedent places the full burden on individuals involved in illegal drug activity to be aware of their surroundings, reinforcing the strong public policy of creating protected zones around schools to shield children from drug-related crime. The ruling effectively eliminates any potential "mistake of fact" defense regarding the defendant's location.
Unlock the full brief for Steelman v. State