Dickerson v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1936
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Dickerson was convicted of three counts of Dealing in Narcotics: two Class B felonies for the buys and one Class A felony for possession with intent to deliver after arrest.
- Two controlled drug buys occurred on January 25 and 28, 2010, with heroin delivered to a confidential informant who was a friend of Dickerson.
- The informant testified at trial using a number to identify himself, and the defense was precluded from seeking his personal identifying information.
- During the second buy, Dickerson retrieved drugs from a cigarette box in his vehicle; after the second buy he was arrested and found with heroin and crack cocaine and buy money.
- Dickerson testified in his defense, admitting the heroin delivery to the informant and claiming the drugs were for personal use or joint purchase.
- The jury convicted; the trial court merged the cocaine possession with the Class A felony and imposed a 25-year aggregate sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether anonymous testimony was fundamental error | Dickerson, as proponent, argues anonymous witness testimony violated cross-examination rights | State contends there is no automatic fundamental error; harmless in context | No fundamental error; at most harmless error |
| Whether the anonymity of the informant violated Confrontation Clause rights | Dickerson relies on Smith v. Illinois to claim per se reversal | State cites Smith and Pigg allowing cross-examination limitations; not per se reversible | Not automatic reversal; harmless under the circumstances |
| Preservation of the issue | Argues denial affected defense due to cross-exam limitations | State notes lack of objection and preservation; no proper preservation | Issue not properly preserved; no reversal for lack of preservation |
| Impact of anonymous witness on defense credibility | Anonymous identification hindered credibility assessment | Dickerson cross-examined the witness and challenged inconsistencies | Record shows cross-examination occurred; no substantial prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129 (1968) (cross-examination scope; name and address inquiry permissible but not absolute)
- Pigg v. State, 603 N.E.2d 154 (Ind. 1992) (limits on cross-examination; not automatic reversal)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (harmless error analysis for cross-examination issues)
- Koenig v. State, 933 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind. 2010) (certain constitutional errors may be harmless depending on case context)
- Akard v. State, 924 N.E.2d 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (fundamental error requires actual and substantial disadvantage)
- Absher v. State, 866 N.E.2d 350 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (principles for when fundamental error applies)
- Siegfriedt v. Fair, 982 F.2d 14 (1st Cir. 1992) (analysis of pseudonyms and Confrontation Clause implications)
- Brown v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1064 (Ind. 2003) (fundamental error as egregious circumstance standard)