Jason McMickle v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED

this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 24 2019, 10:10 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any

CLERK

court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court

Court of Appeals

the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Steven E. Ripstra Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Jasper, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Lauren A. Jacobsen

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jason McMickle, October 24, 2019

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-676

v. Appeal from the Pike Circuit Court

The Honorable Jeffrey L.

State of Indiana, Biesterveld, Judge

Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.

63C01-1803-F4-172

Tavitas, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-676 | October 24, 2019 Page 1 of 11

Case Summary

[1] Jason McMickle appeals his conviction for dealing in methamphetamine, a

Level 4 felony. We affirm.

Issues

[2] McMickle raises two issues, which we restate as:

I. Whether the trial court properly admitted the

methamphetamine into evidence at trial.

II. Whether the trial court properly allowed testimony by an

officer regarding fingerprinting and DNA evidence.

Facts

[3] On March 10, 2018, Corporal Jared Simmons of the Petersburg Police

Department was informed by a confidential informant (“CI”) that the CI could

purchase methamphetamine that evening from Jason Atkins. The CI faced a

pending petition to revoke probation, and, as a result of her cooperation, the

petition to revoke probation was withdrawn. A controlled buy was arranged,

and Corporal Simmons met with the CI at a little league field to search her and

give her the buy money. Corporal Simmons searched the CI’s pockets and had

the CI “shake . . . out” her bra with two hands. Tr. Vol. II p. 48. Corporal

Simmons did not “go towards the crotch area” due to privacy issues. Id. The

CI, however, was wearing tight “jeggings,” and Corporal Simmons was

“confident” that the CI did not have drugs on her person. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-676 | October 24, 2019 Page 2 of 11

[4] Corporal Simmons gave the CI $200.00 in twenty-dollar bills to purchase two

grams of methamphetamine. Corporal Simmons also gave the CI a key fob

recording device. Several other officers, including Sergeant Dallas Killian with

the Pike County Sheriff’s Department, were nearby during the transaction to

provide surveillance. Sergeant Killian was observing from a nearby parking lot

with binoculars. A white van arrived with Atkins in the passenger seat and

McMickle driving. The CI got into the van. Corporal Simmons was able to see

the CI’s outline, and Sergeant Killian was able to clearly observe the CI while

she was waiting on the white van, as she entered the van, and after she got out

of the van. After a few minutes, the CI exited the van and gave the signal that

the transaction was complete.

[5] The officers stopped the white van and arrested Atkins and McMickle.

McMickle had $100.00 of the buy money in his hand, and Atkins had the other

$100.00 of the buy money in his jacket pocket. Two “corner baggies”

containing a substance were recovered from the CI’s hand. Id. at 62. Corporal

Simmons weighed the substance with “a standard set of digital scales,” which

were not calibrated and indicated a weight of 1.9 grams. Id. at 90. Corporal

Simmons field tested the substance, put it in packaging, sealed the packaging,

and logged it into evidence at the police department. After the controlled buy,

Corporal Simmons discovered that the key fob recording device failed to record

due to human error. The laboratory later identified the substance as 1.51 grams

of methamphetamine.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-676 | October 24, 2019 Page 3 of 11

[6] The State charged McMickle with dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 4

felony, and McMickle’s jury trial was held in December 2018. The CI did not

testify because she died in September 2018 as a result of complications of

childbirth. During the first day of the State’s case-in-chief, Corporal Simmons

and Sergeant Killian testified. On the second day of the State’s case-in-chief,

the State recalled Corporal Simmons. Part of Corporal Simmons’ testimony on

the second day pertained to fingerprinting and DNA testing and inaccurate

expectations caused by television programs that depict such forensic testing.

McMickle objected, and the trial court overruled the objection. McMickle also

objected to the admission of the methamphetamine on chain of custody

grounds; the trial court, however, overruled the objection.

[7] Atkins also testified during the State’s case-in-chief that the CI asked to buy two

grams of methamphetamine, but Atkins did not have the requisite amount of

methamphetamine available. Atkins obtained half of the requested

methamphetamine from McMickle, and Atkins then sold the

methamphetamine to the CI and gave half of the money to McMickle.

[8] The jury found McMickle guilty of dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 4

felony. The trial court sentenced McMickle to ten years in the Department of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-676 | October 24, 2019 Page 4 of 11

Correction. McMickle then filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court

denied. 1 McMickle now appeals.

Analysis

I. Admission of Methamphetamine

[9] McMickle first challenges the admissibility of the methamphetamine based on

chain of custody grounds. In reviewing the admission or exclusion of evidence,

we determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. McCallister v. State,

91 N.E.3d 554, 561 (Ind. 2018). We will reverse only if the trial court’s ruling

was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.

Id.

[10] An exhibit is admissible “if the evidence regarding its chain of custody strongly

suggests the exact whereabouts of the evidence at all times.” Culver v. State, 727

N.E.2d 1062, 1067 (Ind. 2000). The State must give “reasonable assurances

that the property passed through various hands in an undisturbed condition.”

1

The State argues that McMickle’s appeal was not timely filed because his motion to correct error was filed

one day late. McMickle contends that his motion to correct error was timely filed by certified mail but that

the CCS does not reflect the correct filing date. We direct McMickle’s attention to Indiana Appellate Rule

32, which provides a procedure for correcting the Clerk’s Record. Regardless, we decline to dismiss this

appeal based on McKnight v. State, 1 N.E.3d 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). There, we dismissed an appeal due to

an untimely motion to correct error. Our Supreme Court, however, granted transfer and vacated our

opinion. “In its order declaring that our appellate jurisdiction has, in fact, been invoked, our supreme court

stated that the timeliness of the motion to correct error had not been raised prior to the State’s appellee’s

brief.” McKnight, 1 N.E.3d at 199 n.2. As such, we addressed the defendant’s arguments on appeal.

Similarly, here, the State failed to raise the timeliness of the motion to correct error until it filed its appellee’s

brief. Based on McKnight, we will address McMickle’s arguments.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-676 | October 24, 2019 Page 5 of 11

Id. “[T]he State need not establish a perfect chain of custody whereby any gaps

go to the weight of the evidence and not to admissibility.” Id. There is a

presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers. Id.

Merely raising the possibility of tampering is insufficient to make a successful

challenge to the chain of custody. Bell v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1080, 1084 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2008), trans. denied.

[11] At the trial, McMickle objected to the admission of the methamphetamine

because the CI was unavailable to testify regarding the chain of custody. 2 On

appeal, McMickle argues that the State failed to establish a proper chain of

custody for the methamphetamine because: (1) the officers failed to completely

search the CI prior to the controlled buy; (2) the officers lost visual contact with

the CI when she was in the van with McMickle and Atkins; (3) the CI was

unable to testify regarding the chain of custody due to her death; (4) the weight

of the methamphetamine was different when the officer weighed it versus when

the laboratory weighed it; and (5) the key fob device did not record the CI’s

interaction with McMickle and Atkins.

[12] The State properly notes that McMickle’s “true argument is that the absence of

[the CI’s] testimony results in a break [in the chain of custody] between

2

The State argues that McMickle waived this issue by failing to object; however, we conclude that McMickle

objected and preserved the issue.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-676 | October 24, 2019 Page 6 of 11

Defendant and [the CI] rather than any law enforcement official.” 3 Appellee’s

Br. p. 17. The State points out that the purpose of the chain of custody rule is

to “ensure that during the time the evidence is in the possession of the law

enforcement authorities, there is not a substitution or alteration of the evidence.”

Morse v. State, 593 N.E.2d 194, 197 (Ind. 1992).

[13] We have held that “[a] properly conducted controlled buy will permit an

inference the defendant had prior possession of a controlled substance.” Watson

v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1291, 1293 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). McMickle relies on

Watson, 839 N.E.2d at 1293, which held: “Because the CI was not searched

prior to the buy and the CI did not testify about receiving the cocaine from

Watson, we must agree with Watson that no reasonable fact-finder, based on

this evidence alone, could have found beyond a reasonable doubt he originally

possessed the cocaine found on the CI after the buy.”

[14] Watson is distinguishable from this case. Here, the police searched the CI prior

to the controlled buy. Corporal Simmons searched the CI’s pockets and had

the CI “shake . . . out” her bra with two hands. Tr. Vol. II p. 48. Corporal

Simmons did not “go towards the crotch area” due to privacy issues. Id. The

CI, however, was wearing tight “jeggings,” and Corporal Simmons was

“confident” that the CI did not have drugs on her person. Id. Officers then

3

The State contends that McMickle’s argument is more of a sufficiency of the evidence argument, but

McMickle specifically states that he is not making a sufficiency of the evidence argument. See Appellant’s Br.

p. 14.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-676 | October 24, 2019 Page 7 of 11

observed the CI as she waited for Atkins and McMickle, as she entered the van,

and as she exited the van and walked away.

[15] McMickle also implies that the chain of custody fails because the weight of the

substance differed when the officer weighed it at the scene and when the

laboratory later weighed it. Corporal Simmons weighed the substance with “a

standard set of digital scales” and found a weight of 1.9 grams. Id. at 90. The

scales, however, were not calibrated. Corporal Simmons then field tested the

substance, put it in packaging, sealed the packaging, and logged it into evidence

at the police department. The laboratory identified the substance as 1.51 grams

of methamphetamine. Although Corporal Simmons was not using calibrated

scales to weigh the substance, the laboratory’s scales were calibrated. Any

difference goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

[16] Finally, the CI was in the van with McMickle and Atkins for only a couple of

minutes, and except for her time in the van, she was continuously observed

between the time of the search and the time the methamphetamine was

removed from her hand. At the time of their arrests, McMickle and Atkins

possessed the buy money, and Atkins testified at the trial that he and McMickle

sold methamphetamine to the CI. Although a recording of the transaction

would have been preferable here, especially since the CI was unable to testify in

this case, the lack of a recording is not fatal to the State’s case.

[17] The State presented evidence regarding the methamphetamine’s chain of

custody that strongly suggests the exact whereabouts of the evidence at all

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-676 | October 24, 2019 Page 8 of 11

times. Each of McMickle’s arguments merely goes to the weight of the

evidence, not its admissibility. His implication of the possibility of tampering is

insufficient to challenge the chain of custody of the methamphetamine. The

trial court properly admitted the methamphetamine.

II. Corporal Simmons’s Testimony

[18] Next, McMickle argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing

Corporal Simmons to testify a second time during its case-in-chief. In

reviewing the admission or exclusion of evidence, we determine whether the

trial court abused its discretion. McCallister, 91 N.E.3d at 561. We will reverse

only if the trial court’s ruling was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts

and circumstances before it. Id.

[19] On appeal, McMickle argues that the trial court abused its discretion by

allowing the State to recall Corporal Simmons on the second day of its case-in-

chief. McMickle, however, did not object during the trial on these grounds, and

accordingly, the argument is waived. See Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621,

631 (Ind. 2010) (Generally speaking, “[a] party may not add to or change his

grounds for objections in the reviewing court. . . . Any ground not raised at

trial is not available on appeal.”) (internal citations omitted).

[20] McMickle also contends that Corporal Simmons was not qualified as an expert

witness and that Corporal Simmons speculated on the impact of fingerprinting

and DNA evidence in Pike County cases. During McMickle’s opening

statement, McMickle noted that no fingerprints or DNA connected McMickle

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-676 | October 24, 2019 Page 9 of 11

to the methamphetamine. During McMickle’s cross-examination of Corporal

Simmons on the first day of the trial, McMickle questioned Corporal Simmons

regarding the lack of fingerprint or DNA testing on the baggies that contained

the methamphetamine. Our Supreme Court has held that, “when a party raises

a subject on cross-examination, it is permissible for the opposing party to pursue

that subject on re-direct examination.” Meagher v. State, 726 N.E.2d 260, 266

(Ind. 2000). McMickle opened the door by raising the issues on cross-

examination, and therefore, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion

by allowing the State to address the issues during Corporal Simmons’s

testimony on the second day of the trial.

[21] Even if the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the testimony, any error

was harmless. An error is harmless when it results in no prejudice to the

substantial rights of a party. Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 652 (Ind. 2018);

Ind. Trial Rule 61. “When a conviction is supported by substantial evidence of

guilt sufficient to satisfy this Court that there is no substantial likelihood that

the questioned evidence contributed to the conviction, the error is harmless.”

Weedman v. State, 21 N.E.3d 873, 890 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.

Immediately following the controlled buy, $100.00 of the buy money was

recovered from McMickle’s hand and the remaining $100.00 of the buy money

was recovered from Atkins’s pocket. Two baggies of methamphetamine were

recovered from the CI’s hand. Atkins testified at the trial that the CI asked to

buy two grams of methamphetamine, but that Atkins did not have enough

methamphetamine available. Atkins obtained half of the requested

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-676 | October 24, 2019 Page 10 of 11

methamphetamine from McMickle. Atkins then gave the methamphetamine to

the CI and gave half of the money to McMickle. Given the overwhelming

evidence, any error in the trial court’s admission of Corporal Simmons’s

testimony was harmless.

Conclusion

[22] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the methamphetamine

or by admitting Corporal Simmons’s testimony. Even if the trial court erred by

admitting Corporal Simmons’s testimony, any error was harmless. We affirm.

[23] Affirmed.

Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-676 | October 24, 2019 Page 11 of 11