Forehand v. State
Citation | 479 N.E.2d 552 |
Decision Date | 28 June 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 184S10,184S10 |
Parties | Ricky FOREHAND, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
William T. Enslen, Robert M. Mirkov, Enslen, Enslen & Matthews, Hammond, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Kathleen Ransom Radford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant (Appellant) was convicted by a jury of dealing in a schedule II controlled substance, phencyclidine (PCP), a class B felony, Ind.Code Secs. 35-48-4-2, 35-48-2-6 (Burns 1984 Cum.Supp.), and was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment. This direct appeal raises two issues:
(1) Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a drug transaction contemporaneous with the charged offense.
(2) Whether the Defendant was provided with ineffective assistance by trial counsel.
The evidence at trial revealed that a confidential informant contacted Officer Bauner of the Lake County Sheriff's Department and informed him that Defendant desired to sell various drugs. He gave the officer Defendant's telephone number. On October 10, 1981, the officer contacted the Defendant, who told him that he could obtain phencyclidine, and agreed that Defendant should provide 1/4 oz. of phencyclidine for $350.00. Officer Bauner, accompanied by another officer, then picked up Defendant and his girlfriend in Valparaiso and drove them to Cedar Lake. During the drive, at Defendant's instructions, his girlfriend sold the officers a small amount of marijuana for $30.00. Although, on that occasion, they visited several locations in Lake County, Defendant was unable to find his source October 10.
On October 13 the confidential informant again contacted Officer Bauner and told him that Defendant could obtain drugs. Bauner called Defendant and eventually met him at his Cedar Lake residence. Once again, problems developed when the officer attempted to purchase 1/4 oz. of phencyclidine, and Defendant then sold him a smaller amount for $60.00.
We note parenthetically that the record also discloses that Defendant was present at the beginning of voir dire but fled before his trial began and that, after he was convicted, he was found and arrested in Utah.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that on October 10, 1981, the first day that he attempted to sell the officers phencyclidine, Defendant had his girlfriend show the officers a small bag of marijuana, which the officers purchased for $30.00. Defendant claims that such evidence was not relevant to the sale of phencyclidine charged to have occurred October 13, 1981, and was unduly prejudicial and inflammatory. We do not agree.
While evidence that a defendant has committed other crimes generally is not admissible to prove the specific crime charged, such evidence may be admitted under various exceptions to this general rule, including the res gestae exception. Under the res gestae exception evidence may be introduced which completes the story of the crime by proving its immediate context, even if this evidence also shows that the defendant committed other crimes during the course of the charged offense. See, Blankenship v. State (1984), Ind., 462 N.E.2d 1311, 1313 and authorities cited. Admission of evidence under the res gestae exception generally is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Id., 462 N.E.2d at 1313.
Defendant argues, in part, that this evidence should not have been admitted because it was his girlfriend, not he, who sold the marijuana to the officers. However, the record conclusively demonstrates that the girlfriend was acting entirely under Defendant's direction during the marijuana transaction. As this Court stated in Blankenship:
(citations omitted.)
Defendant also argues that the evidence of the marijuana transaction of October 10, 1981, was too remote because the transaction in phencyclidine which led to this case occurred on October 13. However,
the record reveals that the officers' contact with the Defendant October 13 occurred as they were trying to complete the transaction that had aborted on October 10. This Court has upheld the admission of evidence of transactions leading to the crime charged, even if the evidence concerned acts outside of the immediate time frame of the charged offense, provided that such evidence otherwise meets the requirements of the res gestae rule. See, e.g., Altman v. State (1984), Ind., 466 N.E.2d 716, 720. The record demonstrates that Defendant's activities with the officers October 10, when he was unable to obtain the phencyclidine, were simply continued on October 13. There is no question that these events were part of the immediate context of the charged crime, even though they occurred several days earlier.
Defendant contends that he was not provided with effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but we do not agree.
Before turning to Defendant's specific contentions, we note that our review of claims of inadequate assistance by counsel is governed by the standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington (1984), --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. Lawrence v. State (1984), Ind., 464 N.E.2d 1291, 1294-97. Strickland established a two-part test to determine whether the defendant received adequate assistance by counsel:
"Under the first step, or 'performance component,' the defendant must demonstrate that the alleged acts or omissions by counsel fell outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. A strong presumption exists that counsel rendered adequate legal assistance. If the defendant satisfies step one of the test, he then must establish the second step, or 'prejudice component,' under which the defendant will be entitled to relief only if the reviewing court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spranger v. State
...to the general rule that evidence of a defendant's prior crimes should not be admitted. This Court recently stated in Forehand v. State (1985), Ind., 479 N.E.2d 552: While evidence that a defendant has committed other crimes generally is not admissible to prove the specific crime charged, s......
-
Mullins v. State
...likely been fruitless due to other direct evidence linking casings found at the murder scene to defendant's weapon); Forehand v. State (1985), Ind., 479 N.E.2d 552, 555 (defense counsel's failure to object to police officer's testifying that a confidential informant told him that defendant ......
-
Beatty v. State
...may be admissible under the res gestae exception to complete the story of the crime by proving its immediate context. Forehand v. State (1985), Ind., 479 N.E.2d 552; Beasley v. State (1983), Ind., 452 N.E.2d 982; Clemons v. State (1981), Ind., 424 N.E.2d 113. In addition, when, as here, a d......
-
Mason v. State
...we have recognized that a tip is admissible when introduced primarily to explain the police's investigation, see, e.g., Forehand v. State, 479 N.E.2d 552, 555 (Ind.1985), that exception is not available here. What prompted the police to investigate Mason is not relevant to any contested iss......