Stayton v. State

Decision Date07 February 1980
Docket NumberNo. 1-679-A-174,1-679-A-174
Citation400 N.E.2d 784
PartiesGarnett STAYTON, Roy Lee Meadows, Appellants (Defendants Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Michael J. McDaniel, New Albany, for appellants.

Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Cindy A. Ellis, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

Garnett Stayton and Roy Lee Meadows (Stayton and Meadows) were convicted of delivering a controlled substance, marijuana, in an amount in excess of thirty grams. Ind.Code 35-24.1-4.1-10. 1 They were also convicted of automobile banditry. Ind.Code 35-12-2-1. 2 We affirm their conviction.

Facts favorable to the State show that Stayton and Meadows were arrested after an informant provided the Jeffersonville Police Department with information that they were seeking a buyer for one hundred pounds of marijuana. In response, the police initiated an undercover investigation in which police officers posed as potential buyers. Following the undercover police officers' instructions relayed through the informant, Stayton and Meadows knowingly arrived at a motel in Jeffersonville on October 28, 1979 in order to transact a sale of marijuana. Stayton and Meadows were armed with pistols and the car they drove contained fifty pounds of marijuana. Stayton and Meadows produced this quantity of marijuana within a short period of time in response to the undercover police officers' interest in buying marijuana. Stayton and Meadows displayed an awareness of what was taking place and both men participated in the transaction. Meadows loaded the marijuana into the buyer's car and Stayton negotiated the purchase price and received payment in the amount of $3,250.

Stayton and Meadows presented an entrapment defense at trial and on appeal they assert that the trial court erred in failing to find that entrapment existed as a matter of law. They actually raise two issues related to entrapment. First, they argue that the State failed to show it had probable cause to suspect them of the crimes charged because no credible evidence to support such a suspicion was presented at the pre-trial hearing on their motion to suppress evidence. Secondly, Stayton and Meadows assert that the State failed to show they were predisposed to commit the crimes charged.

Probable cause to suspect the accused in an entrapment case was formerly required in Indiana. Walker v. State, (1970) 255 Ind. 65, 262 N.E.2d 641. The Indiana Supreme Court, however, has overruled Walker to the extent that proof of probable cause to suspect the accused, in an entrapment case, was required. Hardin v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 635, 358 N.E.2d 134. The Indiana Court of Appeals has retroactively applied the entrapment standard set forth in Hardin. Davila v. State, (1977) Ind.App., 360 N.E.2d 283. Therefore, the State did not have to show probable cause to suspect Stayton and Meadows.

When the probable cause to suspect requirement was in effect, it was analogous to the probable cause necessary to support a search warrant or an arrest warrant, except that the evidentiary threshold was lower. Locklayer v. State, (1974) 162 Ind.App. 64, 317 N.E.2d 868; See Hauk v. State, (1974) 160 Ind.App. 390, 312 N.E.2d 92. Probable cause may be based upon credible hearsay evidence. Credible hearsay may be supplied by a reliable informant, that is an informant who has previously provided reliable information. Ruetz v. State, (1978) Ind., 373 N.E.2d 152; Boules v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 27, 267 N.E.2d 56.

In the case at bar, even if the State was required to show probable cause to suspect, there was ample evidence to satisfy the burden. The investigating police officer testified at the pre-trial hearing that his information was supplied by an informant who had provided accurate information on two prior occasions. The informant indicated that Meadows and an unknown individual, later found to be Stayton, had contacted him and were interested in selling a large quantity of marijuana. The officer therefore had a credible basis for his suspicions and the initiation of the investigation.

Stayton and Meadows next assert that the State failed to introduce credible evidence proving their predisposition to commit the crimes charged. This is essentially an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting predisposition. When entrapment is an issue, the question of whether or not the defendants were predisposed to commit the crimes charged is a question of fact within the jury's province. We will look only to evidence most favorable to the State and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the jury's decision, it will be upheld. Maynard v. State, (1977) Ind.App., 367 N.E.2d 5. The subjective intent of the accused to commit the crimes charged is the proper focus of an inquiry to determine if predisposition existed. Horn v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 382 N.E.2d 1012; Payne v. State, (1976) Ind.App., 343 N.E.2d 325. The accused's intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Possession of a large quantity of a controlled substance may support the inference that the possessor anticipated a sale. The accused's readiness and willingness to commit a crime may be considered as well as his access to a supply of contraband. The manner of the sale itself may also be proper evidence. Payne v. State, supra.

Given this framework for review our examination of the evidence leads us...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Romack v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 31, 1983
    ...of intent to deliver, but may support an inference of intent. See Thompson v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 1151; Stayton v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 784; Gray v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 629, 231 N.E.2d 793. The probative value of quantity in proving intent obviously increases......
  • Townsend v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • April 13, 1981
    ...when entrapment is raised, but does not directly address the question of by whom it may be raised. See also Stayton v. State (1st Dist.1980) Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 784, 786, 787; Maynard v. State (3d Dist.1977) Ind.App., 367 N.E.2d 5, 7. The most recent Supreme Court decision, Williams v. Sta......
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • July 22, 1980
    ...at the trial level the absence of "entrapment probable cause" prior to the decision in Hardin v. State. Compare Stayton v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 784, 786. We hold that the trial court properly decided this issue. The quantum of evidence necessary to support the probable cause t......
  • Busam v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • February 16, 1983
    ...evidence. Lisenko v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 488, 355 N.E.2d 841; Eldridge v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 1264; Stayton v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 784, trans. denied. In fact, a conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence alone. Since it is no longer necessary to est......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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