Brian K. Bell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 35A02-1512-CR-2245

On May 11, 2015, confidential informant Mitchel Buzzard conducted a controlled buy arranged by Huntington Police: he agreed to buy five morphine pills for $140.
Buzzard entered the rear seat of Brian Bell’s car; Bell drove to a Poplar Street apartment, obtained pills, and returned to give Buzzard five morphine tablets.
Buzzard was fitted with audio/video recording equipment and handed the recovered pills and recordings to police after the buy.
Bell was charged with one count of dealing in a narcotic drug (Level 5 felony). A jury convicted him after a two-day trial.
At trial the State played the audio; Buzzard was asked to identify voices and to explain slang terms heard on the recording (e.g., “perks”). Defense objected; the trial court overruled.
The trial court sentenced Bell to the maximum six-year executed term. Bell appealed, arguing (1) the court abused its discretion admitting Buzzard’s testimony about the recording (best evidence rule) and (2) the sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of informant’s testimony about audio contents	State: Buzzard may testify from personal knowledge to identify voices and explain slang; recording was also available to jury	Bell: Admission violated best evidence rule / testimony improperly relied on recording contents	Court: Waived best-evidence claim (defense objected on different grounds); in any event no error — recording available to jury, testimony concerned slang not central, harmless given overwhelming evidence
Appropriateness of six-year sentence	State: Maximum sentence justified by defendant’s role and criminal history	Bell: Sentence inappropriate because he was not the target and merely drove the vehicle	Court: Sentence not inappropriate — defendant actively exchanged money for morphine and has extensive criminal history including prior drug conviction and multiple probation revocations

Lopez v. State, 527 N.E.2d 1119 (Ind. 1988) (witnesses with personal knowledge may testify to facts reflected in best evidence)
Hauk v. State, 729 N.E.2d 994 (Ind. 2000) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Phillips v. State, 22 N.E.3d 749 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (argument raised on appeal must match trial objection; waiver applies)
Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670 (Ind. 2013) (harmless error principle where evidence of guilt is overwhelming)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate review under Rule 7(B) focuses on aggregate sentence and how served)
Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. 2012) (advisory sentence is the starting point for sentencing review)