Upshaw v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that in order to convict the defendant of a class B felony dealing in cocaine, \the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally possessed cocaine with the intent to deliver\
• explaining that in order to convict the defendant of a class B felony dealing in cocaine, “the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally possessed cocaine with the intent to deliver”
• explaining that in order to convict the defendant of a class B felony dealing in cocaine, “the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally possessed cocaine with the intent to deliver”
• finding it was not necessary to resolve which standard of review applied because it would affirm trial court’s Criminal Rule 4(C) decision regardless of which standard was used

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Patrick Austin v. State of Indiana
  Indiana Supreme Court· 2013-11-15· cited 143×
• Feuston v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2011-08-19· cited 21×
• Jermaine McKinley v. State of Indiana
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2015-10-06· cited 13×
• Heinzman v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2012-06-27· cited 12×
• United States v. Smith
  Seventh Circuit· 2019-04-22· cited 11×
• Ricky E. Arion v. State of Indiana
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2016-06-22· cited 2×
• Cundiff v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2011-06-23· cited 1×
• Cory Heinzman v. State of Indiana
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2012-06-27
• Darrin Purnell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2015-06-03
• Kevin J. Mamon v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2015-07-17