32 N.E.3d 812
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- On Oct. 29, 2012, confidential informant Ciji Angel agreed to perform a controlled buy from William Bowman after reporting she had earlier purchased heroin from him.
- Detective Scott Phillips met Angel at an elementary school parking lot, searched her purse and pockets (but not under clothing), placed an audio/video device in her purse, and gave her $160 in unmarked cash.
- Angel returned from Bowman’s apartment with a baggie; she gave it to Detective Phillips, who did not field-test it and only testified it “looked like heroin.” The lab never tested the substance.
- Bowman was charged with Class A felony dealing in a narcotic within 1,000 feet of a school and alleged as an habitual offender. A jury convicted him; the trial court sentenced him to 45 years and adjudicated him a habitual offender.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the State failed to prove the substance was heroin; the habitual-offender finding was vacated as a consequence of reversing the underlying conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved Bowman knowingly dealt a narcotic (heroin) within 1,000 feet of a school | Evidence from the controlled buy (informant’s purchase and officer’s observation) showed the substance was heroin and supported conviction | Substance was never chemically tested; officer only said it "looked like heroin" and procedures were flawed, so identity and intent weren’t proven | Reversed: evidence insufficient because the State did not prove the substance was heroin |
| Whether adjudication as a habitual offender stands after reversal of the underlying conviction | Habitual-offender finding valid because prior convictions existed | Habitual-offender depends on valid underlying conviction | Reversed: habitual-offender adjudication vacated as derivative of reversed conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Bellamy v. State, 259 Ind. 254, 286 N.E.2d 401 (1972) (chemical lab testing is a standard method to identify drugs).
- Vasquez v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1214 (Ind. 2001) (witnesses experienced with a substance may reliably identify it under some circumstances).
- Smalley v. State, 732 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (circumstantial evidence can suffice to prove drug identity when facts support reliability).
- Clifton v. State, 499 N.E.2d 256 (Ind. 1986) (heroin identification supported by lab testing of multiple packages like those sold to an informant).
- Whaley v. State, 843 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (habitual-offender adjudication is invalidated when the underlying conviction is reversed).