Yvonne Howery v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 70A01-1609-CR-2127

Background

In June 2015 Rushville police investigated complaints of heavy short-term foot traffic at Yvonne Howery’s home; surveillance and a confidential informant linked the residence to drug sales.
On June 20 officers observed two men (Collins and Moon) visit Howery’s home and later attempted to sell marijuana at the county fair; Collins was found with marijuana and acknowledged knowing Howery sold to younger individuals.
On June 24 a controlled buy for cocaine led officers to observe the buyer visit Howery’s residence; a search warrant executed that night produced marijuana and cocaine in Howery’s bedroom, a digital scale, a glass pipe with meth residue, unsecured firearms, and evidence of poor living conditions; Howery later tested positive for cocaine.
Howery admitted selling marijuana from her home for about two months but denied selling hard drugs or knowingly using juveniles to sell; she was charged with multiple offenses (including possession of cocaine, maintaining a common nuisance, neglect of a dependent, and dealing in marijuana).
At trial the defense moved for a continuance after the State made DVR surveillance recordings available four days before trial; the court denied the continuance. The court also admitted testimony recounting the CI’s statements and other witness statements over Howery’s hearsay and prior-bad-acts objections.
The jury convicted Howery on all counts except one misdemeanor; the trial court imposed an aggregate four-year sentence (one year to probation). Howery appealed, arguing the denial of the continuance and erroneous admission of evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Howery)	Held
Trial court abused its discretion by denying motion to continue after DVR recordings were produced 4 days before trial	State: DVR was disclosed immediately after learning it was functional; recordings were not intended for use at trial; defendant had known equipment was seized earlier and failed to show specific prejudice	Howery: Late access to many hours of DVR footage prevented investigation that could have undermined probable cause and supported suppression of warrant-derived evidence	Denied. No abuse of discretion — Howery failed to show specific prejudice or explain what exculpatory material the DVR contained or how additional time would have aided counsel.
Trial court erred by admitting hearsay and prior-bad-acts evidence (CI statements; Collins’ statement; Koohns’ testimony about Darrell)	State: Admission was within the trial court’s discretion; even if error, defendant’s guilt was proven by substantial independent evidence	Howery: Testimony and statements were hearsay and improperly introduced prior-bad-act evidence that prejudiced the jury	Affirmed. Even if admission was erroneous, error was harmless given overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.

Key Cases Cited

Gibson v. State, 43 N.E.3d 231 (Ind. 2015) (continuance and preparation standards in criminal cases)
Elmore v. State, 657 N.E.2d 1216 (Ind. 1995) (statutory grounds for continuance)
Carter v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1254 (Ind. 1997) (defendant must specifically show how extra time would have aided counsel)
Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459 (Ind. 2015) (deference to trial court on evidentiary rulings)
Tynes v. State, 650 N.E.2d 685 (Ind. 1995) (standard of review for admission of evidence)
Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998 (Ind. 2014) (trial court best positioned to weigh credibility and evidence admissibility)
Fleener v. State, 656 N.E.2d 1140 (Ind. 1995) (errors in evidence admission are harmless unless they affect substantial rights)