Fancil v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 160
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Fancil admitted manufacturing meth and led police through his home showing meth-prep materials.
- Police found extensive meth-related paraphernalia and fifteen grams of pseudoephedrine; no meth was recovered in situ.
- State charged Fancil with class A felony Dealing in Methamphetamine for manufacturing three+ grams.
- Detective Faulstich testified about conversion ratios, asserting possible yields from available pseudoephedrine.
- Court instructed on class A and class B dealing; denied lesser-included instruction on possession of reagents; Fancil was convicted and sentenced to 48 years with 4 suspended.
- On appeal, the court partially reversed, concluding the evidence did not prove three+ grams but remanding for conviction and resentencing on a class B felony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Faulstich’s testimony proved three+ grams of meth beyond a reasonable doubt | State | Fancil | Insufficient evidence to prove three+ grams. |
| Whether confession admissibility cured corpus delicti | State | Fancil | Corpus delicti satisfied; confession admissible. |
| Whether trial court erred by denying lesser-included offense instruction | State | Fancil | Correct to deny; no serious evidentiary dispute. |
| Whether use of prior April purchases violated double jeopardy | State | Fancil | No double jeopardy violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Halferty v. State, 930 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (conversion ratio testimony insufficient to prove 3+ grams)
- Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445 (Ind.1998) (corpus delicti rule applicability)
- Curley v. State, 777 N.E.2d 58 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (admissibility of evidence under abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Brown v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1010 (Ind.1998) (abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- Scott v. State, 803 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (lesser-included offenses recognized in meth cases)
- Iddings v. State, 772 N.E.2d 1006 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (lesser-included offense analysis in meth context)
- Bush v. State, 772 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind.App.2002) (to determine whether possession with intent is lesser-included)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.1999) (actual evidence test for double jeopardy)
- Jaramillo v. State, 823 N.E.2d 1187 (Ind.2005) (double jeopardy principles)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind.2007) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)