Chase v. StateChase v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- DeBruler
This is а direct appeal following conviction, in a trial by jury, of the offenses of Dealing in a Schedule II Controlled Substance, a class B felоny, and Conspiracy to Deal in a Schedule II Controlled Substance, a class B felony. Appellant received twenty year concurrеnt sentences for each offense.
There are two issues presented for review: (1) whether appellant’s incriminating statements to two law enforcement officers were improperly admitted into evidence; and (2) whether reversible error resulted from exclusion of utility bill records.
These are the facts pertinent to this appeal: In May of 1985 two undercover police officers arranged to purchase methamphetamine, commonly called crank, from Tammy Riley. Cynthia Colleen Roth brought the methamphetamine to Riley’s house and was introduced as Riley’s source’s “old lady”. Roth was living with appellant and driving his car at the time. The two women were arrested shortly thereafter. Fоllowing Roth’s arrest, appellant separately contacted a police officer and a federal Drug Enforcement Agenсy (DEA) officer. He informed them that Roth had acted for him in selling the methamphetamine and offered to give his biggest drug connection in exchangе for Roth’s release. Appellant was later charged with these offenses based upon his own statements to the law enforcement officers and Tammy Riley’s statements indicating she arranged the drug deal with appellant and that Roth, appellant’s girlfriend, just delivered the methamрhetamine. Roth denied appellant’s involvement in the drug transaction.
I.
Police officer Wilkins and federal DEA officer McGivney were permitted to testify concerning their conversations with appellant wherein he informed them Roth was acting as a courier for him and offered his biggest drug connection in exchange for her release. Appellant urges that admission of his statements to the officers amounted to imрermissible admission of protected plea negotiations, citing
“A plea agreement, or a verbal or written communicаtion concerning the plea agreement, may not be admitted into evidence at the trial of the case, should the plea agrеement not culminate in approval by the court.”
The plea bargaining process does not start until persons having the authority to make a binding agreement hаve agreed to negotiate. There must be an agreement, a meeting of the minds, after the leveling of a felony or misdemeanor charge, to enter into plea negotiations. A unilateral offer of evidence to induce a party to negotiate is not proteсted.
The purpose of
In the case before us, there was no felony or misdemeanor charge lodged agаinst appellant at the time of his statements. Therefore, there was nothing to which to enter a plea of guilty. There was also no meеting of the minds to enter plea negotiations. What occurred was a unilateral decision to volunteer incriminating statements in an attempt to induce plea negotiations between the State of Indiana and appellant’s girlfriend, Roth. Consequently, admission of the statements appellant made to the police officer and the DEA officer was not a violation of
II.
Appellant called Harold Eaton, a customer service representative for Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company, as a witness for the defense. Eaton tеstified that the company computer records are under his supervision and control. He testified that Exhibit No. 3 was a computer print-out of records, kept in the normal and regular course of business, for 1227 E. Louisiana Street, appellant’s address in Evansville. He testified that the utility bill due in March, 1985, for service was paid but that none of the bills were paid after that date and that the electricity was turned off for non-payment оn June 20, 1985 and the gas turned off for non-payment on August 22, 1985. Appellant then offered Exhibit No. 3 into evidence.
The State objected, arguing that Eaton’s testimony was the “best evidence” and that the document was repetitious. The Court sustained the objection, stating “[i]t is un-controverted”. Appellаnt then made an offer to prove Exhibit No. 3.
Assuming arguendo that the trial court erred in sustaining the objection to admission, appellant’s claim of resulting prejudice is insufficiently persuasive. The claim is that his entire theory of defense was destroyed by the error and that he was prevented from establishing the year of the bills which were not paid, the amount of the bills and the amounts of energy used each month. Counsel sought to establish thаt appellant did not pay his utility bills during a time period in which the State was alleging he was giving away free samples of drugs and had access to оver $12,000.00 to purchase them.
Eaton testified from the computer printout, supplying most if not all of the desired evidence in verbal form. The informаtion contained in the records was readily available to the defense and could have been presented through the questioning of Eaton. The ruling did not restrict the questioning of Eaton, but did restrict the de
The convictions are affirmed.
SHEPARD, C.J., and GIVAN, PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur.