William Bowman v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. LEXIS 302
| Ind. | 2016Background
- In October 2012 confidential informant Ciji Angel, who lived in the defendant’s apartment building, reported two heroin purchases from William Bowman; she gave police two small baggies, one of which tested positive for heroin and the other was not chemically tested.
- Detective Phillips met Angel in the elementary school parking lot (~530 feet from Bowman’s apartment), supplied $160 in unmarked cash, placed a recording device in her purse, and did not fully search her person because no female officers were available. The device recorded nothing useful.
- Angel had an extensive substance-abuse history, had used heroin earlier that day, lived in the apartment full-time, and disliked Bowman; a three-year-old child (J.P.) also resided in the apartment and was present during the transactions.
- Bowman was charged with Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug within 1,000 feet of school property and later adjudicated a habitual substance offender; the trial court admitted redacted prison letters Bowman wrote to potential witnesses seeking favorable testimony.
- A jury convicted Bowman; the trial court imposed 45 years (40 for the Class A felony, 5 consecutive for habitual offender). The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed for insufficient evidence as to the second baggie; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "sentencing factor manipulation" by police/CI precludes school‑proximity enhancement | State: Enhancement is supported by evidence that apartment was within 1,000 feet and a child was present; police conduct did not make proximity or child presence inapplicable | Bowman: Enhancement resulted from law‑enforcement/CI conduct (meeting in school lot, CI bringing child) and should be barred under sentencing‑factor‑manipulation doctrine | Court: Did not adopt doctrine but found Bowman failed to show outrageous police conduct or that facts were manipulated; enhancement proper |
| Whether jury unanimity was required because evidence showed two buys but charge alleged one | State: Evidence of two buys could be used to prove the single charged offense; instruction not required if defendant fails to object | Bowman: Jury may not have unanimously found the same act; court should have instructed unanimity | Court: Issue waived—Bowman did not tender/unobject to a unanimity instruction and did not preserve fundamental‑error claim on appeal |
| Admissibility of Bowman’s prison letters under Rule 404(b) | State: Letters show attempts to coerce/influence witnesses and thus bear on consciousness of guilt/knowledge | Bowman: Letters merely asked witnesses to tell the truth and were unfairly prejudicial/irrelevant | Court: Evidence admitted within trial court’s discretion as probative of attempts to influence witnesses and knowledge of guilt |
| Sufficiency of evidence as to the second baggie (identity as heroin) | State: Jury could credit Angel’s testimony and the circumstantial record (one bag tested; Angel said both purchases were heroin; Phillips visually identified the second bag); overall record supports verdict | Bowman: Second bag was not chemically tested; Phillips’s visual ID was insufficient so evidence was insufficient to support conviction | Court: Viewing evidence in favor of verdict, jury reasonably found element proven beyond reasonable doubt; sufficiency upheld |
| Appropriateness of 40‑year sentence for Class A felony under Appellate Rule 7(B) | State: Trial court permissibly found multiple aggravators (including 20 prior convictions), explained deviations from advisory sentence | Bowman: Sentence excessive given offense/character | Court: Sentence not inappropriate; trial court articulated reasons and record supports aggravators |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind. 2011) (jury unanimity instruction required when evidence shows multiple acts unless preserved otherwise)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review; affirm unless no reasonable fact‑finder could convict)
- Bassett v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 2008) (threats or attempts to suppress evidence admissible as bearing on knowledge of guilt)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (appellate review and reasoning required when trial court deviates from advisory sentence)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (trial court must state reasons for sentences above advisory range)