Bombe v. State, 42S00-8608-CR-763

Decision Date14 July 1988
Docket NumberNo. 42S00-8608-CR-763,42S00-8608-CR-763
PartiesLucinda (Cindy) BOMBE, a/k/a Lucinda (Cindy) Rickard, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Teresa D. Harper, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Louis E. Ransdell, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

GIVAN, Justice.

A jury trial resulted in a conviction of appellant for Dealing in a Schedule II Controlled Substance, a Class B felony, for which she received eleven (11) years, and Maintaining a Common Nuisance, a Class D felony, for which she received two (2) years, the sentences to run concurrently.

The facts are: In the summer of 1984, Stanley Williams, Jr., who had been arrested on unrelated charges, was acting as an informant for the Knox County Sheriff and the Vincennes Police Department. Although appellant was not a target at the time, Williams happened to be in her apartment at which time she offered to sell him Methamphetamine, referred to by appellant and the informant as "crank." The informant notified police officers of this incident.

On July 10, 1984, the informant was searched by police officers, given $100, and sent to buy "crank" from appellant. She sold him one-half gram of the drug for $50. Subsequent chemical analysis determined the substance to be Methamphetamine weighing .3075 grams. In a prior incident on July 2, 1984, undercover police officer William George had purchased 1.3122 grams of cocaine from appellant and one Charles Mack. There was also evidence that Bobby McDowell, who was also working with the police, had purchased from appellant one-quarter gram of Methamphetamine on three occasions and one-quarter pound of marijuana in January and February of 1984.

Appellant claims the trial court erred in overruling her objection to evidence of independent and distinct transactions four to five months prior to the charged crimes. Appellant relies on the general proposition that evidence of other unrelated crimes is inadmissible, citing Penley v. State (1987), Ind., 506 N.E.2d 806 and other cases. However, evidence of other crimes may be admitted to show intent, motive, purpose, identification, or common scheme and plan. Jenkins v. State (1985), Ind., 474 N.E.2d 84.

Commencing with defense counsel's opening statement and continuing throughout the trial, appellant attempted to cast doubt upon the informant's veracity and motivation. When a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Reynolds/Herr v. State, 87A04-9008-CR-00394
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • December 11, 1991
    ...prove intent, motive, purpose, identity or common scheme or plan. Bartruff v. State (1988), Ind.App., 528 N.E.2d 110. In Bombe v. State (1988), Ind., 525 N.E.2d 336, our supreme court found that the admission of uncharged acts of drug dealing was not reversible error where the defendant att......
  • Hardin v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • September 30, 1992 show a common scheme or plan to conduct a drug dealing business. See e.g. Clark v. State (1989), Ind., 536 N.E.2d 493; Bombe v. State (1988), Ind., 525 N.E.2d 336; Sweet v. State (1986), Ind., 498 N.E.2d 924; Manuel v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 436, 370 N.E.2d 904; Downer v. State (1982), I......
  • Street v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 18, 1991
    ...well within the Sweet nine-month time frame, and similarly transpired between the defendant and one informant. See also Bombe v. State (1988), Ind., 525 N.E.2d 336 (evidence of other drug transactions four to five months prior admissible as showing scheme or plan of selling drugs) (two Just......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT