Bell v. State
| Decision Date | 17 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 20A03–1311–CR–464.,20A03–1311–CR–464. |
| Citation | 16 N.E.3d 490 (Table) |
| Parties | Joseph M. BELL, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Timi S. Sloat, Kindig & Sloat, PC, Nappanee, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Katherine Modesitt Cooper, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
BRADFORD
, Judge.
On July 16, 2012, Appellant–Defendant Joseph M. Bell was pulled over for failing to use his turn signal. After being pulled over, Bell acted suspiciously. When an investigating officer walked around Bell's vehicle, the officer noticed a chemical smell coming from the vehicle and saw a baggie containing a white powdery substance and items used in manufacturing methamphetamine sitting in plain sight on the floorboard of the vehicle. A search of the vehicle revealed a methamphetamine lab and numerous items used in manufacturing methamphetamine. A subsequent search of Bell's apartment revealed additional items used in manufacturing methamphetamine. In addition, Bell told investigating officers that he regularly manufactured methamphetamine and that each time he did so, he manufactured four grams of methamphetamine.
On July 18, 2012, Appellee–Plaintiff the State of Indiana (the “State”) charged Bell with Class A felony attempted dealing in methamphetamine. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Bell guilty as charged and imposed a thirty-three-year term of incarceration, with four years suspended to probation. On appeal, Bell contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a portion of his statement to investigating officers. Bell also contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for Class A felony attempted dealing in methamphetamine. We affirm.
While on patrol during the morning hours of July 16, 2012, Corporal Dan Milanese of the Elkhart Police Department initiated a traffic stop after he observed a red Mercury Topaz turn without signaling. When Corporal Milanese activated his police vehicle's emergency overhead lights, the driver of the vehicle, later identified as Bell, “kind of took off quickly,” drove through an intersection, “ducked in behind” an apartment building, and parked the vehicle “haphazardly” in a parking lot behind the apartment building. Tr. p. 18. Bell exited the vehicle immediately after he parked and began to walk away. In light of Bell's actions, Corporal Milanese suspected that Bell might be attempting to flee from law enforcement and requested additional police assistance.
Corporal Milanese ordered Bell to return to his vehicle. Bell complied with this request. Corporal Milanese approached and determined that Bell was the only person inside the vehicle. Corporal Milanese requested Bell's driver's license and registration and explained why he initiated the traffic stop. Bell indicated that he “just forgot” to use his turn signal. Tr. p. 21.
During his encounter with Bell, Corporal Milanese observed that Bell was extremely nervous and that Bell's reaction was “much different” from what he typically observes in others. Tr. p. 21. In particular, Corporal Milanese noted that Bell's hands were “very, very shaky” and his breathing was rapid. Tr. p. 21. Bell clutched his chest and said Tr. p. 21. Corporal Milanese also noted that Bell failed to respond appropriately to repeated questions. Due to concern for Bell's safety, Corporal Milanese asked Bell to exit his vehicle.
After arriving at the scene, Corporal Chad Odle, also of the Elkhart Police Department, observed that Bell appeared to be “very nervous.” Tr. p. 37. Bell consented to an outer body pat-down search, which revealed no weapons. Bell remarked to Corporal Odle that he thought he was going to jail.
As Corporal Odle stood near Bell's vehicle, he detected a chemical smell that seemed to be coming from inside the vehicle. Corporal Odle approached Bell's vehicle on the passenger side and could see a plastic baggie that contained a powdery substance, lithium batteries, and money sitting in plain sight on the floorboard of the driver's side of the vehicle. Based on his training and experience as a police officer, Corporal Odle knew that certain narcotics had the appearance of a white powdery substance and were packaged in plastic baggies. Corporal Odle also knew that lithium batteries could be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
After having noticed the above-stated items in plain sight, Corporals Milanese and Odle initiated a search of Bell's vehicle. During the search of Bell's vehicle, Corporals Milanese and Odle found several items used to manufacture methamphetamine in Bell's vehicle. These items include a Coleman fuel can, plastic baggies, crystal drain cleaner, sodium hydroxide, stripped lithium batteries and casings, a coffee filter containing white residue, cold packs, and four empty blister packs of pseudoephedrine. Corporals Milanese and Odle contacted the Elkhart Police Department drug unit and the Indiana State Police meth suppression team. Upon searching the vehicle, Detective Greg Harder of the Elkhart Police Department observed what he believed, based upon his training and experience, might be a methamphetamine lab. Bell was subsequently placed under arrest.
After obtaining a search warrant, officers also searched Bell's apartment, finding numerous items used in or related to the manufacture of methamphetamme. These items included wire strippers, a coffee grinder that contained white residue, scales, a Coleman fuel can, a plastic Coke bottle,1 plastic baggies, two full boxes of pseudoephedrine
, two receipts, and crystal drain cleaner. Officers also found an orange box that contained glass tubes that had burn marks, coffee filters containing a white residue that field tested positive for methamphetamme, plastic baggies, and aluminum foil boats.
That same day, Bell gave a videotaped interview to Detective Tim Freel of the Elkhart Police Department in which he admitted that he had been manufacturing methamphetamme for about one year. Bell described the process he used to cook the methamphetamme, in detail, specifically recounting that he used “two and two only” boxes of pseudoephedrine at a time. State's Ex. 1. Bell stated that each batch of methamphetamme consistently produced four grams of finished methamphetamme.
On July 18, 2012, the State charged Bell with Class A felony attempted dealing in methamphetamme. The trial court conducted a bench trial on August 30, 2013, after which it took the matter under advisement. On October 10, 2013, the trial court found Bell guilty as charged. On November 15, 2013, the trial court sentenced Bell to a thirty-three-year term of incarceration, with four years suspended to probation. This appeal follows.
On appeal, Bell contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence. Bell also contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for Class A felony attempted dealing in methamphetamine. For its part, the State argues that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence at trial and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Bell's conviction.
Bell contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence at trial in violation of Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b)
(“Evidence Rule 404(b) ”). Our standard of review for rulings on the admissibility of evidence is essentially the same whether the challenge is made by a pre-trial motion to suppress or by an objection at trial. Ackerman v. State, 774 N.E.2d 970, 974–75 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), reh'g denied, trans. denied. We do not reweigh the evidence, and we consider conflicting evidence most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Collins v. State, 822 N.E.2d 214, 218 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied. We also consider uncontroverted evidence in the defendant's favor. Id.
A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence. Washington v. State, 784 N.E.2d 584, 587 (Ind.Ct.App.2003)
(citing Bradshaw v. State, 759 N.E.2d 271, 273 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) ). Accordingly, we will reverse a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence only when the trial court abused its discretion. Id. (citing Bradshaw, 759 N.E.2d at 273). An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. (citing Huffines v. State, 739 N.E.2d 1093, 1095 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) ).
Bell claims that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Bell's statement2 that each time he manufactures methamphetamme, he follows the same recipe and procedure and each batch consistently produces four grams of the drug. Bell acknowledged at trial that his statement was relevant to prove his motive, intent, and plan to manufacture methamphetamme. However, Bell argued both below and on appeal, that this same statement was not relevant to prove the amount of the drug he intended to manufacture, and, as a result, was admitted in violation of Evidence Rule 404(b)
. We disagree.
When addressing the admissibility of evidence under [Evidence] Rule 404(b)
, courts must utilize a two-prong analysis. Scalissi v.. State, 759 N.E.2d 618, 623 (Ind.2001). First, the court must assess whether the evidence has some relevancy to a matter at issue other than the defendant's propensity to commit the charged act. Id. Second, the court must weigh the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect, pursuant to Evidence Rule 403. Id. We will reverse a trial court's determination of admissibility only for an abuse of discretion. Id.
Wages v. State, 863 N.E.2d 408, 410 (Ind.Ct.App.2007).
was designed to assure that ‘the State, relying upon evidence of uncharged...
To continue reading
Request your trial