Combs v. State

Citation150 N.E.3d 266
Decision Date09 July 2020
Docket NumberCourt of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1991
Parties James W. COMBS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Attorney for Appellant: M. Slaimon Ayoubi, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Courtney Staton, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Tavitas, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] James Combs appeals his convictions for Counts I, II, and III, possession of

narcotic drugs, Level 3 felonies; Count V, operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, a Class A misdemeanor; Count VI, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class C misdemeanor; Count VII, operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance or its metabolite in the body, a Class C misdemeanor; Count VIII, leaving the scene of an accident, a Class B misdemeanor; and Count IX, public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Issues

[2] Combs raises six issues on appeal; however, we consolidate and restate the issues as follows:

I. Whether the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence.
II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to replace a juror with an alternate juror.
III. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct.
IV. Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Combs' convictions.
Facts

[3] On February 11, 2017, Combs was driving his gold van when he swerved to avoid another vehicle and struck an electrical box in Lebanon. After the accident, Combs exited his vehicle and took photographs of the damage. Witnesses described Combs as "lethargic" and "quiet" at the scene of the accident. Tr. Vol. III p. 11. Witnesses also reported to law enforcement that Combs looked for something under the driver's seat of the vehicle, was "rummaging around," and trying to "push things around." Id. at 13. Shortly thereafter, Combs left the scene.

[4] Officer James Koontz, a patrol officer with the Lebanon Police Department, responded to a dispatch call regarding the accident and arrived approximately two minutes later. Combs was not at the scene when Officer Koontz arrived. Witnesses directed Officer Koontz to a nearby neighborhood, to which Combs reportedly drove after the accident. Officer Koontz traveled to the neighborhood, where he observed a fluid trail and a damaged van.

[5] The van was parked in Combs' driveway and had a flat driver-side front tire; Officer Koontz observed that the fluid trail continued up the driveway to the van. Officer Koontz arrived as Combs stepped from the driver's seat of the van. Officer Koontz advised Combs to remove his hands from his pockets and asked if Combs had any weapons. Combs advised Officer Koontz he had three guns on his person, which Officer Koontz removed. Combs also stated that he intended to call the police about the accident.

[6] Officer Koontz requested Combs' identification. As Combs retrieved his identification from the van, Officer Koontz observed a knife in "the area between the two front seats." Tr. Vol. II p. 11. Officer Koontz asked Combs to step away from the van. As Officer Koontz questioned Combs about the accident, witnesses to the accident arrived at Combs' house. Officer Koontz asked Combs for permission to search the van; however, Combs refused, unless Combs could hand Officer Koontz the items in the vehicle.

[7] During the conversation, Officer Koontz observed that Combs' eyes were glassy, Combs had pinpoint pupils, and Combs' speech was slowed. Officer Koontz did not detect any odors from Combs' breath; however, Officer Koontz became suspicious that Combs may be under the influence of medication or drugs. Accordingly, Officer Koontz proceeded with an investigation for operating while intoxicated. Several other officers arrived at the scene, including Lieutenant Rich Mount, with the Lebanon Police Department.

[8] Combs failed two of the field sobriety tests; however, a portable breath test was negative for alcohol. Officer Koontz asked if Combs took any prescription medication that day, and Combs advised that he took his prescribed Adderall medication. Officer Koontz read Combs the Indiana Implied Consent Law, and Combs agreed to submit to a chemical test.

[9] At some point after Combs was handcuffed to be transported for the chemical test,1 but before Combs was taken to the hospital, Officer Koontz asked Combs if Officer Koontz could look under the front seat of his van. Combs initially consented to the officers looking under the front passenger seat of the van. The officers looked under the seat and found a black bag. Combs, however, told the officers that they could not look inside the bag. The officers then ended their search.

[10] As Officer Koontz transported Combs to the hospital for the chemical test, Lieutenant Mount telephoned the prosecutor's office from his vehicle. Lieutenant Mount remained with Combs' van to "figure out ... what [officers] were gonna [sic] do with the [van]." Id. at 52. The officers learned that the van contained valuable items related to Combs' business.

[11] The officers called for the van to be towed, and an inventory search of the van was conducted while the van was still in the driveway. The inventory search yielded several personal items, including white pills in a clear bag,2 and a prescription bottle belonging to Combs. The white pills were identified as Alprazolam, Hydrocodone, Oxycodone—all controlled substances. Some personal items collected from the van were turned over to Combs' wife at the scene. Two days later, Combs' van was also returned to his wife.

[12] Combs' urine drug screen revealed the presence of amphetamine, A-Hydroxyalprazolam, "which is a metabolite for Xanax," hydrocodone, oxycodone, and T.H.C. Tr. Vol. IV p. 66. The blood screen detected the presence of alprazolam and amphetamine.

[13] On February 13, 2017, the State charged Combs with Counts I, II, and III, possession of narcotic drugs,3 Level 3 felonies; Count IV, possession of a controlled substance, a Level 6 felony; Count V, operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, a Class A misdemeanor; Count VI, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class C misdemeanor; Count VII, operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance or its metabolite in the body, a Class C misdemeanor; Count VIII, leaving the scene of an accident, a Class B misdemeanor; and Count IX, public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor.

[14] On May 10, 2017, Combs filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the search of Combs' van, which he claimed violated his rights pursuant to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. On July 7, 2017, the trial court held a hearing on Combs' motion to suppress.

[15] At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Lieutenant Mount testified that he "was leaning towards towing [the van] as evidence because it was involved in the leaving the scene of a property damage accident," and police department policy allows impoundment when the vehicle is evidence of a crime.4 Tr. Vol. II p. 53. Lieutenant Mount then testified that officers were "definitely" going to arrest Combs for leaving the scene of a property damage accident after his blood draw at the hospital; therefore, officers began the process of impounding and inventorying the van. Id. at 67. When he was asked whether a less intrusive method was available to obtain the needed evidence, Lieutenant Mount testified that this procedure was "just [the department's] policy." Id. at 70.

[16] In closing arguments at the hearing on the motion to suppress, the State argued that the decision to impound Combs' van was "discretionary." Id. at 85. On August 9, 2017, the trial court issued an order denying Combs' motion to suppress. The trial court found that the officers had probable cause to believe the van was connected to criminal activity, and thus, could seize the van without a warrant.

[17] Combs filed a motion to reconsider on August 27, 2018. The trial court entered an order again denying Combs' motion to suppress and found as follows:

This Court finds that in this case under consideration, the State did not rely on the automobile exception to enter onto Defendant's property and seize evidence as was prohibited in Collins v. Virginia [, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1663, 201 L.Ed.2d 9 (2018) ]. The officer first to arrive at Defendant's residence was in fresh pursuit of the Defendant and his arrival at Defendant's residence occurred at the same time the alleged crime was unfolding. These exigent circumstances allowed the officer to enter onto Defendant's property. Additionally, the officer had probable cause to believe the Defendant had violated I.C. 9-26-1-1.1 [ ] and further, had the authority to arrest the Defendant on his property as a result. The obvious nature of Defendant's van as evidence of Leaving the Scene of an Accident allowed its seizure pursuant to the plain view doctrine....

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 115. Combs moved to certify the order for interlocutory appeal on September 26, 2018, which the trial court granted on September 28, 2018. Our Court denied jurisdiction over Combs' interlocutory appeal.

[18] At Combs' jury trial from May 14 to May 16, 2019, witnesses testified to the foregoing facts. Combs lodged a continuing objection to the evidence recovered from the van. At the trial, Lieutenant Mount again testified that law enforcement towed Combs' van as evidence of a crime. Lieutenant Mount testified that he did not obtain a warrant to search the van because obtaining a search warrant was "a pain in the a**." Tr. Vol. III p. 169. Also during his testimony, Lieutenant Mount acknowledged that Combs admitted his involvement in the accident; however, when pressed about why the van would need to be seized given Combs' admission, Lieutenant Mount testified that he was unsure and that Combs may have initially denied any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Combs v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 3 Junio 2021
    ...erroneously admitted the pills.Our Court of Appeals found that Combs’ federal constitutional rights were violated. Combs v. State , 150 N.E.3d 266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. granted , 157 N.E.3d 527. It concluded "the towing and impound search ... were merely pretextual means by which off......
  • Collins v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 21 Marzo 2022
    ...by the probable persuasive effect of the misconduct on the jury rather than the degree of impropriety of the conduct. Combs v. State , 150 N.E.3d 266, 279 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), aff'd in relevant part , 168 N.E.3d 985 (Ind. 2021), cert. denied (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)......
  • Collins v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 21 Marzo 2022
    ... ... by reference to case law and the Rules of Professional ... Conduct. We measure the weight of the peril by the probable ... persuasive effect of the misconduct on the jury rather than ... the degree of impropriety of the conduct ... Combs v. State , 150 N.E.3d 266, 279 (Ind.Ct.App ... 2020), aff'd in relevant part , 168 N.E.3d 985 ... (Ind. 2021), cert. denied (citations and internal ... quotation marks omitted) ... [¶18] ... Although Collins frames his argument as one of prosecutorial ... ...

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