Tyler Bishop Smiley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
70A01-1706-CR-1394
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Undercover officer Wombolt arranged a controlled buy of one gram of methamphetamine from Dustin Messer for $120.
- Messer did not have drugs and called Tyler Smiley, who arrived seated in the front passenger seat of a silver car with two other men.
- Messer entered the car, Smiley grabbed/checker Messer (looking for a wire) and questioned him about prior dealings with the officer; Messer then received money and meth from the backseat passenger.
- Messer returned to the officer and completed the sale; the substance was later identified as methamphetamine.
- Smiley was charged with dealing (Level 5) and possession (Level 6); a jury acquitted him of dealing but convicted him of possession; Smiley appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Smiley's conviction for possession of methamphetamine | State: evidence showed Smiley knowingly aided Messer in obtaining the meth, so accomplice liability supports possession conviction | Smiley: State failed to prove he had (actual or constructive) possession of the methamphetamine | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence (presence, prior relationship, conduct checking Messer for a wire, questioning, and failure to oppose the exchange) supported conviction under accomplice liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Atteberry v. State, 911 N.E.2d 601 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Baumgartner v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (reasonable inferences from evidence support conviction)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (circumstantial evidence may support conviction if reasonable inference of guilt exists)
- Maul v. State, 731 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. 2000) (presence plus other facts can sustain conviction)
- Specht v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1081 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (accomplice liability provides alternate basis of liability for charged offense)
- Wieland v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1198 (Ind. 2000) (factors for assessing whether defendant aided another: presence, companionship, failure to oppose, course of conduct)
- Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (affirming conviction based on accomplice liability where defendant suggested meeting, was present, and sat calmly during exchange)
- McWhorter v. State, 993 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. 2013) (inconsistent jury verdicts tolerated and not reviewable on appeal)