Jerry Vanzyll v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 591
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Vanzyll was convicted in Howard Superior Court of dealing in methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine, possession of chemical reagents with intent to manufacture, and resisting law enforcement.
- Police observed odor and items indicative of a meth lab in Vanzyll’s residence during a narcotics investigation and obtained a search warrant.
- A jail guard testified that Vanzyll admitted writing a letter found at the jail; the letter and the admission were admitted at trial.
- During execution of the warrant, officers found methamphetamine, ammonia, acids, and lab-related items; evidence supported manufacturing activity.
- Vanzyll contested the jail-guard testimony as Miranda-corrupted and challenged the sufficiency of the resisting and manufacturing convictions.
- The trial court admitted the jail-guard testimony; a jury convicted on all counts except some lesser details, leading to this direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of jail guard testimony on letter. | State argues Miranda not triggered; questioning was jail-rule inquiry. | Vanzyll argues custodial Miranda protections applied; admission was error. | No abuse; Miranda not triggered; admission proper. |
| Sufficiency of resisting law enforcement conviction. | State contends Vanzyll fled by exiting after doors opened, constituting resistance. | Vanzyll had no command to stop and did not flee when ordered later. | Insufficient to prove fleeing; reverse and vacate resisting conviction. |
| Sufficiency of manufacture conviction. | State showed extensive lab materials and processes indicating manufacturing. | State did not prove an active lab; manufacturing requires more than presence of items. | Sufficient to support manufacturing conviction; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardister v. State, 849 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 2006) (knock-and-talk rights; flight not per se exigent)
- Wellman v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1061 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (fleeing inside after being told to stay outside challenges restraint)
- Bush v. State, 772 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (manufacturing conviction not require completed product)
- Robertson v. State, 877 N.E.2d 507 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (items used in meth manufacture support inference of activity)
- Traylor v. State, 817 N.E.2d 611 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (evidence of items used in meth manufacture supports conviction)
- Howes v. Fields, 132 S. Ct. 1181 (2012) (custody and Miranda analysis; not custodial in some jail interrogations)