Legal Opinion · Dissent
Coulbern v. State
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided October 5, 1995No. 34A02-9504-CR-182Published
1DissentStaton, Judge
I dissent from the majority's conclusion that jeopardy assessment and collection of the Controlled Substance Excise Tax ("CSET") against Coulbern prohibits subsequent criminal prosecution for two reasons:
1. IND.CODE § 6-7-3-9 (1998) specifically states that payment of the Controlled Substance Excise Tax does not make the buyer immune from criminal prosecution.
2. The Indiana Controlled Substance Excise Tax is not punishment for double jeopardy purposes.
*1256First, the Indiana legislature clearly intended to impose the CSET civil sanction in addition to the criminal drug offense punishment. The act…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- United States v. HalperSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Helvering v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth RanchSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Detterline v. BonaventuraIndiana Court of Appeals · 1984
- Hardin County Education Ass'n v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations BoardAppellate Court of Illinois · 1988
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.