Todd Norman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
69A05-1611-CR-2661
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 10, 2017Background
- During a probation visit on Feb. 17, 2016, officers found 12.59 grams of methamphetamine under a couch cushion in Norman’s home, a digital scale with apparent drug residue, $8,500 in cash in a container, and $500 on Norman’s person.
- Norman was on probation; officers also observed alcohol in the home and Norman later tested positive for methamphetamine.
- The State charged Norman with Level 2 felony possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver (based on amount ≥ 10 grams) and initially a Level 4 count that was dismissed before trial.
- At trial Norman testified the drugs belonged to a guest, claimed the scale was for weighing darts, and that his cell phone was missing; the State questioned him about possible destruction of the phone to suggest concealment of records of sales.
- A jury convicted Norman of Level 2 possession with intent to deliver; the trial court sentenced him to 27.5 years with five years suspended to probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Norman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of questioning about missing cell phone | Cell phone evidence is relevant because dealers often store sales records on phones; missing/destroyed phone bears on consciousness of guilt | Questioning was irrelevant, prejudicial, and impermissible bad-act evidence suggesting destruction to hide drug dealing | Trial court did not abuse discretion; questioning was relevant and not unduly prejudicial and admissible under Rules 401/403/404(b) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for intent to deliver | Quantity (12.59 g), scale with residue, and large cash holdings support inference of intent to deliver | Amount and surrounding facts, at best, are circumstantial and do not prove intent beyond reasonable doubt | Evidence sufficient; reasonable juror could infer intent to deliver from amount, scale, and cash |
| Appropriateness of sentence under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) | Sentence within statutory range (10–30 yrs), above advisory but suspended 5 years—reflects seriousness and offender’s record | Sentence is inappropriate given substance-abuse history and mitigating circumstances | Sentence not inappropriate; appellate court affirmed given offense gravity and Norman’s character (probation violations, prior convictions, lack of treatment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 2002) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. 1997) (framework for 404(b) relevance and 403 balancing)
- Bennett v. State, 787 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (attempts to conceal evidence admissible as consciousness of guilt)
- Cline v. State, 860 N.E.2d 647 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (large quantity of narcotics supports inference of intent to deliver)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (appellate review principles for sentencing under Rule 7(B))
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (purpose and limits of Rule 7(B) review)