Thomas Mack v. State of Indiana, 23 N.E.3d 742

Background

Mack was convicted after a jury trial of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, forgery, maintaining a common nuisance, and possession of marijuana.
Police pursued a counterfeit $100 bill case; Darren Stewart identified Mack as the source of the counterfeit.
Stewart wore a recording device and led officers to Ashby’s residence at 3587 Woodside Drive, where Mack’s voice was heard inside the home.
Officers obtained a no-knock search warrant for Woodside Drive based on probable cause that a SVF felon possessed firearms; firearms, drugs, and related items were seized, including a 3-in-1 printer and a photocopy of a $100 bill in a bag under a trap door.
Evidence at trial included Stewart’s audio recordings and Officer Simpson’s recollection of Stewart’s statements; Officer Smith had pre-warrant interactions with Mack but was not allowed to identify her role as parole officer.
On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions, holding that certain challenged evidence was admissible or harmlessly error, and that sufficiency of the evidence supported the verdicts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of search-warrant evidence	Probable cause was flawed; warrant overbroad; no-knock entry improper.	Probable cause and no-knock justification were lacking; evidence seized beyond scope.	No abuse; errors harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Admissibility of Stewart’s statements (audio recordings) and confrontation clause	Stewart’s statements were nonhearsay and admissible context for other evidence.	Stewart’s statements were hearsay and violated confrontation rights.	Stewart’s audio statements were nonhearsay and did not implicate Confrontation Clause.
Admissibility of Stewart’s statements to Officer Simpson	Stewart’s statements to Simpson fit present sense impression.	Statements were not immediate and thus not present sense impressions; violated confrontation rights.	Court abused the present sense impression ruling; Confrontation Clause violation occurred but harmless.
Confrontation rights as to Stewart’s testimonial statements to Officer Simpson	Statements were admissible as non-testimonial or non-constitutional error.	Statements were testimonial and violated Crawford/Confrontation Clause.	Statements were testimonial; admission violated Confrontation Clause; error deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sufficiency of the evidence for the convictions	Evidence linked Mack to the Woodside residence and to possession of firearms and marijuana.	Insufficient proof of possessory interest or control over the premises.	Evidence sufficient to support all convictions; affirmance affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Stephenson v. State, 796 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (false statements in warrant affidavits; Franks rule applied)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (probable cause excision for warrant invalidity standard)
Hewell v. State, 471 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (plain view doctrine limitations)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1971) (plain view; inadvertence considered in Fourth Amendment)
Horton v. California, 110 S. Ct. 586 (U.S. 1990) (abrogated inadvertence aspect of plain view under Fourth Amendment)
Williams v. State, 930 N.E.2d 602 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (nonhearsay context of informant’s statements; confrontation not triggered)
Jones v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. 2003) (plain view and intrusions matching search scope; evidence admissibility)
Koenig v. State, 933 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind. 2010) (harmless error standard for constitutional errors)
Moore v. State, 669 N.E.2d 733 (Ind. 1996) (harmless error review and sufficiency considerations)
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (U.S. 2006) (no-knock warrant violations and exclusionary rule limitations)
Lane v. State, 997 N.E.2d 83 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (defining testimonial versus nontestimonial statements)