Darion Lamar Bailey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
18A-CR-1072
| Ind. Ct. App. | Apr 18, 2019Background
- On March 21, 2017, police observed Darion Bailey acting suspiciously; during an attempted stop he fled and abandoned a backpack that contained a loaded handgun, multiple digital scales, baggies and containers of methamphetamine (including 5.51 grams), $481, marijuana, and prescription medication. Bailey was later arrested after discarding a firearm while being pursued.
- The State charged Bailey with multiple counts including Level 2 felony possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and alleged he was an habitual offender; jury trial occurred February 26–27, 2018.
- Sergeant David Eads, a narcotics investigator with extensive training and experience, testified about typical user vs. dealer amounts of methamphetamine and described Bailey’s backpack as consistent with what a drug dealer would carry. Defense objected as impermissible legal conclusions; objections were overruled.
- For the habitual-offender proceeding the State admitted certified charging informations and chronological case summaries for prior offenses bearing identical biographical identifiers (name, birthdate, SSN, driver’s license number); Bailey objected on hearsay grounds.
- The jury convicted Bailey on most counts, found him an habitual offender, and the court imposed enhanced sentences producing a 45-year aggregate term. Bailey appealed admission of Eads’s testimony and the admission/sufficiency of the habitual-offender proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Sergeant Eads’s opinion testimony about dealer v. user quantity and backpack indicia | State: Eads was qualified and gave permissible opinion evidence based on training/experience that could lead to incriminating inferences | Bailey: Testimony improperly reached an ultimate legal conclusion (that he was a dealer) in violation of Evid. R. 704(b) | Court: Testimony was expert/opinion about typical dealer practices and amounts, not a legal conclusion about guilt; admissible; any error would be harmless. |
| Testimony saying the backpack was what a dealer would carry (paraphernalia description) | State: Descriptive expert testimony about items consistent with dealing was admissible | Bailey: Testimony pointedly referenced Bailey’s backpack and thus opined on guilt/intent | Court: Permissible experiential/opinion evidence drawing inferences; did not directly state guilt; admissible. |
| Admission of charging informations and case summaries in habitual-offender hearing (hearsay) | State: Certified charging documents and summaries are public/ministerial records admissible to identify the defendant | Bailey: Biographical information in those documents is out-of-court hearsay not admissible to prove prior convictions | Court: Documents were ministerial identification records or public records exempt from hearsay exclusion (Fowler); admission was not erroneous. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to adjudicate Bailey an habitual offender | State: Matching certified documents with name, DOB, SSN, driver’s license, height sufficed to prove identity of prior convictions | Bailey: The record did not sufficiently connect him to prior convictions beyond hearsay documents | Court: Matching biographical identifiers in charging informations and certified records provided a reasonable basis to find defendant was the person convicted; sufficiency upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386 (Ind. 1997) (standard for reviewing admission of evidence)
- Jester v. State, 724 N.E.2d 235 (Ind. 2000) (appellate review can affirm on any legal ground in record)
- Steinberg v. State, 941 N.E.2d 515 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (opinion testimony may lead to incriminating inferences but must stop short of declaring guilt)
- Williams v. State, 43 N.E.3d 578 (Ind. 2015) (analysis of Rule 704 and limits on opinion testimony about ultimate issues)
- Powers v. State, 440 N.E.2d 1096 (Ind. 1982) (experienced officer may opine whether drugs were held for sale)
- Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011) (definition of harmless error for admission of evidence)
- Fowler v. State, 929 N.E.2d 875 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (ministerial booking/charging records fall under public-records hearsay exception)
- Gentry v. State, 835 N.E.2d 569 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (matching biographical data in charging documents can establish identity for prior convictions)