Jeremiah Edward Erickson v. State of Indiana
72 N.E.3d 965
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- DEA confidential informant (CI) coordinated purchase of purported Roxicodone sent from Evansville, IN to Mexico City; CI provided tracking number and consented in writing to a search. Package intercepted in transit and opened, revealing 120 blister-pack pills containing tramadol/acetaminophen (Schedule IV).
- Return name/address on package were fake; phone number on package was valid. Vanderburgh County detective used the number in two recorded undercover calls posing as the CI’s associate.
- In calls, the person referenced details about the shipment ("Dude from India," "blisters," pills color) and later identified himself as "Jeremiah/Johnny/Jerry." Detective arranged a meeting; Jeremiah Erickson arrived, admitted sending the package, and was arrested.
- Erickson was charged with dealing a Schedule IV controlled substance (Level 3 felony). Pretrial motions to suppress and to exclude the recordings were denied; recordings were admitted and played to the jury.
- Jury convicted Erickson; trial court sentenced him to 14 years (advisory is 9, range 3–16). On appeal, Erickson challenged (a) admissibility of the package search and (b) admissibility of the recorded calls (404(b)/notice/403), and (c) sought revision of his sentence under App. R. 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Erickson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mid‑transit warrantless search of mailed package was lawful | CI (addressee) had common authority and gave valid written consent; search thus falls under consent exception | Erickson claimed a continued expectation of privacy as sender and that a government agent/CI cannot validly consent to a search of his package | Court held CI had common authority and validly consented; no Fourth Amendment violation; evidence admissible |
| Whether two recorded phone calls were admissible despite Rule 404(b) notice and prejudice concerns | Recordings were relevant to identity/connection to package; defense had recordings in discovery and was not surprised; probative value outweighed prejudice | Erickson argued recordings were prior bad acts, lacked required 404(b) notice, and were unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Court held notice requirement satisfied (or excused for good cause), recordings admissible under 404(b) as identity evidence, and Rule 403 did not require exclusion |
| Whether 14‑year executed sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | State supported sentence based on scope (cross‑border scheme), willingness to arrange larger sale, and extensive criminal history | Erickson argued his role was limited/intermediary and sentence is excessive | Court found sentence not inappropriate given offense nature and offender’s character; affirmed 14 years |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (sealed packages ordinarily protected by Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249 (first‑class mail protected from inspection absent Fourth Amendment exception)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (third party with common authority may validly consent to search)
- United States v. Williams, 106 F.3d 1173 (4th Cir.) (informant’s cooperation supports implied consent to open mailed packages)
- United States v. Aldridge, 642 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.) (consent to search effects where owner conferred joint access)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (discusses concerns where third party acts as government agent in consenting)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Indiana sentencing framework and advisory sentence principles)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (standard for appellate review of sentence appropriateness)
- Hatcher v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1155 (Rule 404(b) notice purpose: avoid surprise and permit pretrial resolution)