Leah S. Fink v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 31A01-1510-CR-1704

Background

A confidential informant purchased methamphetamine in a controlled, recorded buy at Leah Fink’s Corydon home on Aug. 15, 2011; Fink answered the door and stayed downstairs while her boyfriend Jeremy Ripperdan conducted manufacturing upstairs.
During the buy Fink supplied glue sticks and tubing used in the one‑pot ("shake and bake") meth process; the informant received finished product from Ripperdan.
A search warrant executed Aug. 16, 2011 uncovered an active one‑pot vessel, lithium, organic solvents, ammonium nitrate, burned pseudoephedrine, drug paraphernalia, and residue in Fink’s bedroom; receipts and pharmacy logs showed repeated pseudoephedrine purchases by Fink.
Fink was charged with seven counts including Class B dealing in methamphetamine (Count I) and Class D possession of chemical reagents/precursors with intent to manufacture (Count V); she pled guilty to several counts but contested Counts I and V.
A jury convicted Fink on all counts; the trial court imposed concurrent sentences with an advisory 10‑year term for Count I (two years suspended), for an aggregate of ten years (eight executed, two suspended).
On appeal Fink challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence as to accomplice liability for dealing and constructive possession of precursors, and (2) sentencing—claiming the court failed to consider mitigators and that the advisory sentence was inappropriate under Rule 7(B).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Fink)	Held
Sufficiency — dealing as accomplice (Count I)	Evidence shows Fink knowingly aided Ripperdan (providing materials, allowing home as lab, purchases of pseudoephedrine) so accomplice liability established.	At most she was present and knew activity; no affirmative conduct establishing intent to aid manufacturing.	Affirmed — jury could infer affirmative conduct and common purpose from providing materials, knowledge, and other circumstances.
Sufficiency — possession of reagents/precursors (Count V)	Items (ammonium nitrate, lithium, organic solvent) were on premises; drug‑manufacturing setting and other evidence support constructive possession/knowledge.	Fink lacked exclusive control and no proof she knew of these specific items; State failed to prove intent/knowledge.	Affirmed — jury could infer knowledge from drug‑manufacturing setting, proximity, residues, and other circumstances.
Sentencing — failure to consider mitigating factors	Court considered aggravators/mitigators; no abuse of discretion.	Trial court failed to adequately consider minimal role, unlikely recurrence, and loss of law license as mitigating factors.	No abuse — sentencing statement (oral and written) addressed minimal role and loss of career; court rejected unlikely recurrence due to addiction and subsequent arrest.
Sentence appropriateness (Rule 7(B))	Sentence (advisory 10 years, partially suspended) is reasonable given repeated use of home for labs, multiple items and stages of manufacture, and defendant’s conduct while on release.	10‑year advisory sentence is inappropriate given lack of prior record, medical‑related addiction, minimal role, and low risk of reoffense.	Affirmed — after due consideration, appellate court found sentence not inappropriate in light of offender’s character and nature of the offenses.

Key Cases Cited

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review).
Sanquenetti v. State, 727 N.E.2d 437 (Ind. 2000) (accomplice liability/principal‑as‑aider rule).
Vandivier v. State, 822 N.E.2d 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (accomplice conviction need not show participation in every element; presence and other facts may be considered).
Massey v. State, 816 N.E.2d 979 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (constructive possession requires intent/capability to maintain dominion; knowledge may be inferred from circumstances).
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (sentencing review/abuse of discretion and required sentencing statement).
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (appellant bears burden to show sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B)).