Glenn Sciaraffa v. State of Indiana
28 N.E.3d 351
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On May 1–2, 2014, Glenn Sciaraffa used a one‑pot ("shake and bake") method to manufacture methamphetamine at his Cass County home; his girlfriend Brandi Bragg observed the process and the two smoked some of the product.
- Officers visited the residence later that day, smelled strong chemical odors, obtained consent to search, and seized items associated with meth manufacture (battery casings, tubing, solvents, scales) and two liquid samples (a Gatorade bottle and a glass bottle with a milky/oily residue).
- Indiana State Police forensic scientist Kim Burrow ran tests: the glass bottle produced a presumptive positive for methamphetamine but there was insufficient quantity for a confirmatory test; the Gatorade bottle tested negative.
- Sciaraffa was charged with dealing in methamphetamine (Class B), possession (Class D), possession of precursors (Class D), maintaining a common nuisance (dismissed pretrial), possession of paraphernalia (A misdemeanor), and alleged as an habitual substance offender.
- A jury convicted Sciaraffa on the charged counts and found him an habitual substance offender; the trial court imposed an aggregate 29‑year sentence (20 years for the Class B count, enhanced by 8 years).
- On appeal Sciaraffa raised three issues: admission of the presumptive test result, alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing, and sufficiency of the evidence to support the dealing conviction.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Sciaraffa's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of presumptive meth test (Evid. R. 702) | Forensic scientist was qualified; she performed accepted tests (thin‑layer chromatography and GC/MS) and laid foundation; inability to confirm went to weight not admissibility | Test was unreliable because scientist did not fully explain scientific principles/standards and could not confirm result; counsel failed to object but invokes fundamental error | Admission not error: foundation and reliability satisfied under Rule 702(b); lack of confirmatory test affected weight, not admissibility; no fundamental error |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (statements implying State had "final product") | Closing argument reasonably characterized the evidence (Bragg’s testimony, remnants, presumptive result); jury instructions warned arguments are not evidence | Prosecutor insinuated existence of excluded/hidden physical meth evidence and used "we have the final product," prejudicing jury; counsel intentionally did not object and invokes fundamental error | No misconduct/fundamental error: statements were permissible inferences from evidence; record showed only two samples were submitted and jury was instructed on argument vs evidence |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for dealing in methamphetamine | Bragg’s eyewitness testimony of manufacturing and joint consumption, corroborated by chemical odor and paraphernalia, supported a reasonable inference of manufacturing the finished product | Bragg’s testimony alone did not prove Sciaraffa made the meth they smoked; no confirmatory lab result established presence of meth | Sufficient: jury could reasonably find Sciaraffa knowingly manufactured meth based on Bragg’s testimony and physical evidence; credibility and weight for jury to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Doolin v. State, 970 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (expert testimony under Evid. R. 702 requires foundation showing reliability)
- Burkett v. State, 691 N.E.2d 1241 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (officer testimony about field drug test admissible where officer described training, procedure, and test mechanics)
- Markley v. State, 603 N.E.2d 891 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (thin‑layer and GC/MS recognized as generally accepted drug‑identification techniques)
- McKnight v. State, 1 N.E.3d 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (errors in measurement or testing go to weight of evidence, not admissibility)
- Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. 2014) (framework for reviewing prosecutorial misconduct and fundamental‑error doctrine)