State v. Vorm
Indiana Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
CONOVER, Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant the State of Indiana (State) appeals the acquittal of Defendant-Appellant Neis Eric Vorm (Vorm).
We affirm.
The sole issue the State presents for our review is whether the presence of cocaine metabolites in a defendant’s urine constitutes sufficient evidence to support a conviction for possession of cocaine.
In April, 1990, Vorm was charged with possession of cocaine after testing positive in a random urine sample taken under the supervision of Daniel Cory, his Work Release Supervisor. The State presented the affirmative test results showing the presence of…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. FlinchpaughSupreme Court of Kansas · 1983
- Franklin v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1969
- State v. GoodrichIndiana Supreme Court · 1987
- Pinkston v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1982
- State v. LewisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Commonwealth v. PellegriniMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1993
- State v. GriffinCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1998
- Jackson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1992
- State v. McCoyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1993
- City of Logan v. CoxOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.