Larry Corneal Johnson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 18A-CR-1735

In May 2017 police used a confidential informant (C.I.) to make a recorded controlled buy of ~1 gram of heroin from Larry Johnson at his home; buy money was later found on Johnson and police seized ~11 grams of heroin and scales in a search of his residence.
Johnson was charged with two counts of dealing in a narcotic (Level 2 and Level 5) and maintaining a common nuisance (Level 6); he dismissed retained counsel and repeatedly insisted on proceeding pro se.
The trial court warned Johnson repeatedly about the dangers of self-representation, offered standby/public counsel multiple times, and determined his waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary.
On the morning of trial and after jury selection Johnson asked for “co-counsel”/standby assistance; the court denied the last-minute request because none were available and hybrid representation is not permitted.
During trial Johnson pursued an entrapment theory and questioned the C.I.’s motives; in response the State elicited testimony that the C.I. had purchased heroin from Johnson on about ten prior occasions to rebut entrapment and show predisposition.
Johnson was convicted on all counts and sentenced to an aggregate 25 years; he appealed arguing (1) improper waiver of counsel, (2) denied re-assertion of right to counsel/hybrid counsel, and (3) erroneous admission of prior-acts evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether waiver of counsel was valid	State: court properly conducted warnings and inquiries; Johnson knowingly waived counsel	Johnson: waiver was invalid because court failed to thoroughly advise and inquire; lacked legal understanding	Court: Waiver was knowing, intelligent, voluntary; Poynter factors satisfied
Whether Johnson reasserted right to counsel mid-trial	State: request was for hybrid/co-counsel and untimely; court properly denied for lack of availability and because hybrid representation is not required	Johnson: he reasserted his right and court erred by not applying Koehler factors before denying	Court: Request was for hybrid representation; trial court not required to apply Koehler factors; denial proper
Admissibility of evidence that C.I. bought heroin from Johnson previously	State: prior sales rebut entrapment and show predisposition; admissible under Rule 404(b) for non-character purpose	Johnson: prior-acts evidence was irrelevant and highly prejudicial character evidence	Court: Admission was proper to rebut entrapment and probative value outweighed prejudice; no fundamental error
Whether any of the rulings amounted to fundamental error	State: no; any errors were not blatant or prejudicial enough to deny due process	Johnson: combination of issues and prior-acts testimony denied fair trial	Court: No fundamental error; convictions and sentence affirmed

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (Sixth Amendment permits self-representation but requires waiver be knowing and intelligent)
Poynter v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1122 (Ind. 2001) (articulates multi-factor test for knowing waiver of counsel)
Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639 (Ind. 2008) (hybrid representation not required; discussion of standby counsel)
Koehler v. State, 499 N.E.2d 196 (Ind. 1986) (factors for assessing a midtrial request to abandon self-representation and obtain counsel)
Stoker v. State, 692 N.E.2d 1386 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (entrapment defense can open the door to admission of prior drug transactions)
Dixon v. State, 712 N.E.2d 1086 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (prior drug-transaction testimony admissible to rebut entrapment and show knowledge/intent)
Jackson v. State, 728 N.E.2d 147 (Ind. 2000) (defendant must "open the door" for admission of other-acts evidence)