Deltrice Watkins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
82A05-1603-CR-625
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 8, 2016Background
- On March 11 and April 9, 2014, Watkins sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant; after a later buy she was stopped while driving and police found methamphetamine, hydrocodone, alprazolam, and buy money in her vehicle.
- The State charged Watkins with two counts of dealing in methamphetamine (Class A felonies) and two counts of possession of controlled substances (hydrocodone — Schedule III, and alprazolam — Schedule IV; Class D felonies).
- At trial Sergeant Eades testified that Watkins told him she had bottles for Xanax and Lortabs and that he did not check whether she had prescriptions. The defense presented no evidence.
- The court instructed the jury on the elements of possession for the Schedule III and IV offenses; defense counsel did not object and expressly agreed Instruction No. 3 was correct.
- The jury convicted on all counts; the trial court sentenced Watkins to concurrent terms (30 years on the dealing counts; 547 days on the possession counts).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to instruct the jury that a valid prescription is a defense to possession | State: instructions as given were proper and no error preserved | Watkins: omission of prescription exception deprived her of defense where officers did not check prescriptions; court should have instructed once defense was asserted | Court: No preserved error — defense did not object or tender an instruction and did not raise fundamental error in initial brief; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lundy v. State, 26 N.E.3d 656 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (a valid prescription is a defense to possession; defendant bears burden to prove it)
- Williams v. State, 959 N.E.2d 360 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (prescription defense recognized as element of possessory defense)
- Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174 (Ind. 2016) (trial-rule objection requirement construed to require timely, specific jury-instruction objections)
- Scisney v. State, 701 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. 1998) (explaining purpose of contemporaneous objection rule and requirements for appellate review)
- Curtis v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1143 (Ind. 2011) (issues like fundamental error cannot be raised first in a reply brief)