Julie Jean Wright v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 73A04-1702-CR-256

In July 2014 a confidential informant arranged a controlled buy of one-half ounce (13.9 g) of methamphetamine for $850 from Jovina Cueto; narcotics officers surveilled and recorded the transaction.
Julie Jean Wright (eight months pregnant) drove to the buy location with her 15-year-old (also pregnant) daughter in the front seat and Cueto in the rear; Wright had a history of giving Cueto rides for money.
After the sale, officers stopped Wright’s vehicle, found $800 of the buy money on the rear floorboard, and later recovered a bindle of methamphetamine (1.09 g) in Wright’s black purse along with ID in her name.
A K-9 alerted to the impounded vehicle, officers obtained a search warrant, and forensic testing confirmed both seized substances were methamphetamine.
Wright was charged with dealing methamphetamine (Level 2), possession in presence of a child (Level 3), and neglect of a dependent (Level 5); the jury convicted and the court imposed a 15-year executed sentence (3 years suspended).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions (including accomplice theory)	State: Evidence (texts, calls, meeting with supplier, fronted drugs, buy coordination, money recovered, drugs in Wright’s purse, presence of minor) supports convictions beyond a reasonable doubt	Wright: She only provided a ride and attempted to sell her dog; facts do not prove knowing delivery/possession or neglect	Affirmed — the evidence and reasonable inferences supported convictions; appellate court will not reweigh evidence
Fundamental error in admitting lab report (State’s Exhibit 20) after lab mislabeling of item tags	State: Exhibit admissible; technician testified weights/tests were correct despite swapped tags; defense cross-examined	Wright: Mislabeling transposed weights between items; failure to object at trial — argues admission was fundamental error	No fundamental error — court found mislabeling explained, trial counsel cross-examined, and defendant failed to show a fair trial was impossible

Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d 878 (Ind. 2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Specht v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1081 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (accomplice liability is a separate basis of liability, not a separate crime)
Guilmette v. State, 14 N.E.3d 38 (Ind. 2014) (admissibility of evidence rests within trial court's discretion)
Thomas v. State, 81 N.E.3d 621 (Ind. 2017) (standard for abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
Harris v. State, 76 N.E.3d 137 (Ind. 2017) (defining fundamental error as narrow exception to waiver)
Gibson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 204 (Ind. 2016) (context on the heavy burden to show fundamental error)
Taylor v. State, 687 N.E.2d 606 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (failure to object waives error absent fundamental error)