Marques Ridley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not
be regarded as precedent or cited before FILED
any court except for the purpose of Sep 08 2017, 5:58 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
CLERK
collateral estoppel, or the law of the Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark Small Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Marques Ridley, September 8, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
54A04-1701-CR-25
v.
Appeal from the Montgomery
Circuit Court
State of Indiana,
The Honorable Harry A.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Siamas, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
54C01-1501-F5-152
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A04-1701-CR-25 | September 8, 2017 Page 1 of 12
Case Summary
[1] Marques Ridley appeals his convictions for one count of Level 5 felony dealing
in a narcotic drug (heroin) and three counts of Level 6 felony dealing in a
substance represented to be a controlled substance. We affirm.
Issues
[2] The issues before us are:
I. whether the trial court erred in admitting the State
laboratory’s chain of custody certificate regarding the
evidence samples; and
II. whether there is sufficient evidence to support Ridley’s
convictions.
Facts
[3] On four occasions in 2014–September 23, 24, 29, and 30–the Crawfordsville
Police Department in Montgomery County worked with a confidential
informant (“CI”) to purchase heroin from Ridley during controlled buys. On
each occasion, Captain Kurt Knecht searched the CI, fitted the CI with a
transmitter, gave the CI money for the transaction, and monitored the
transaction. Police also photographed the CI and Ridley together. After each
controlled buy, police again searched the CI, who no longer had the money,
and who handed over bindles of purported controlled substances that he
purchased from Ridley.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A04-1701-CR-25 | September 8, 2017 Page 2 of 12
[4] Each sample was tested by forensic scientist Jenna Crawford of the Indiana
State Police Laboratory (“laboratory”). The September 23 sample tested
positive for heroin. The September 24, 29, and 30 samples did not contain any
controlled substances.
[5] On January 25, 2015, the State charged Ridley with one count of Level 5 felony
dealing in a narcotic drug (heroin) and three counts of Level 6 felony dealing in
a substance represented to be a controlled substance. The State also filed and
subsequently dismissed an habitual offender enhancement. Ridley was tried by
jury on April 19 through April 20, 2016.
[6] At trial, Crawford testified as follows regarding the laboratory’s evidence receipt
and intake, tracking and case management, and analysis procedures:
A. Yes. When a contributing agency brings evidence to our
laboratory they’ll complete a request for laboratory examination
form. Upon going to the laboratory with this form an evidence
clerk will then receive the evidence, insure [sic] that’s [sic] it’s in
a sealed condition and assign it a unique laboratory number and
item number. The evidence is then stored, it’s determined that
it’s sealed, evidence needs to be sealed if it comes into our
laboratory it needs to be packaged correctly as well. It will then
be stored into a secure vault until an analyst such as myself
would request it for analysis. I would then receive the evidence
from the evidence clerk and then have my own secure location
that I would leave any evidence that’s in my custody, I perform
my test, take a weight of the item if I’m able to and then once I
complete my examination I’ll then return the evidence back to
one our evidence clerks. They will store it in a secure vault until
the contributing agency that brought the evidence comes back to
pick it up.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A04-1701-CR-25 | September 8, 2017 Page 3 of 12
*****
Q. And do you recall the agency that brought these over for
analysis to your laboratory?
A. Yes, it was the Crawfordsville Police Department.
*****
Q. I want to show you what’s been marked for identification
purposes as State’s Exhibit One and ask if you can identify that
particular exhibit?
A. Yes. I recognize State’s Exhibit One by the sticker on the
evidence that states the laboratory file number fourteen I dash zero
five eight zero nine. The item number is zero zero one. I have
actually marked this laboratory number and the item number on
the evidence myself in handwritten as well as my initials and the
date that I received the evidence into my custody. And then when
I open the evidence and reseal it the seal that I create I will actually
initial and put my permanent employee number over both sides of
that seal and because this is a clear plastic bag I can actually see
inside and there is a piece of tape that is also marked with the
laboratory file number, the item number and my initials and
permanent employee number.
*****
Q. And where was that item kept until you were able to
perform that analysis?
A. It was kept in our secured vault until I received it.
Q. When you got it it was sealed?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A04-1701-CR-25 | September 8, 2017 Page 4 of 12
A. Yes. When I receive evidence into my custody with that
transfer from the evidence clerk to myself, I also ensure that the
evidence is sealed.
Tr. pp. 79, 81.
[7] Crawford testified that the laboratory maintains a computer system that tracks
the location of evidence delivered to the lab by contributing agencies. The
following colloquy ensued between Crawford, the deputy prosecuting attorney,
and counsel for Ridley after the State offered the chain of custody report
generated by the computer system into evidence:
[Q]: Move to admit State’s Twenty-Two.
MR. TANSELLE [counsel for Ridley]: Your honor, I don’t think
a proper foundation for twenty-two has been met. I don’t believe
that the witness is a custodian of records who can testify that
these are true and authentic business records of the company.
She certainly can testify to her knowledge of the chain of
custody, but I don’t believe that these are accurate records or not
accurate records, but I’m sorry, but properly authenticated
records that could be admissible in court.
Q. Did you provide those to my office?
A. Those documents are kept during the normal course of
business and they were asked for and I provided them.
MR. TANSELLE: And if I could further inquire. You are a, you
said that you are what’s your title again?
WITNESS: Forensic Scientist.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A04-1701-CR-25 | September 8, 2017 Page 5 of 12
MR. TANSELLE: Thank you, Forensic Scientist. Are you also
the custodian of records then?
WITNESS: Our laboratory keeps all records, it’s in a computer
system, so I have access to all those records that are in with each
case that I work. So I’m able to pull up the chain of custody
report for the cases that I work.
MR. TANSELLE: But you are not the custodian of records?
WITNESS: That is not my title no.
Tr. pp. 91-92. Counsel for Ridley renewed his objection to the chain of custody
certificate, which was admitted over his objection.
[8] The jury found Ridley guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Ridley
accordingly, and he now appeals.
Analysis
I. Admission of Evidence
[9] Ridley argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the chain of
custody certificate into evidence.1 We review the admission of evidence for an
1
[1] The State asserts that Ridley is improperly advancing a new issue on appeal that he did not
present to the trial court. We agree, in part. See Hitch v. State, 51 N.E.3d 216, 219 (Ind. 2016)
(“[A] defendant cannot raise new issues or arguments on appeal that were not presented to the
trial court.”). In his brief, Ridley contends, in part, that the chain of custody was defective
and that the evidence was “possibly handled by numerous people.” Appellant’s Br. p. 20. At
trial, however, defense counsel objected on grounds that the laboratory’s testing methods were
not scientifically reliable; the report was not authenticated; and Crawford was not the business
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A04-1701-CR-25 | September 8, 2017 Page 6 of 12
abuse of discretion. Wilson v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1265, 1272 (Ind. 2002). An
abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances. Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind.
2001). In reviewing the admissibility of evidence, we consider only the
evidence in favor of the trial court’s ruling. Whiteside v. State, 853 N.E.2d 1021,
1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
[10] Ridley first argues that the laboratory’s chain of custody report was hearsay and
did not meet the requirement of the business records exception. Hearsay is a
“statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or
hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Evid. R.
801(c). Hearsay is not admissible unless it falls within one of the exceptions
provided in the evidence rules. Evid. R. 802. The business records exception to
the hearsay rule states, in part:
A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form,
of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near
the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with
knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business
activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity
to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all
as shown by the testimony or affidavit of the custodian or other
records custodian. To the extent that Ridley now asserts a new issue on appeal, that issue is
waived. We will only address Ridley’s hearsay and authentication claims.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A04-1701-CR-25 | September 8, 2017 Page 7 of 12
qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method
or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
Evid. R. 803(6). “‘To admit business records pursuant to this exception, the
proponent of the exhibit may authenticate it by calling a witness who has a
functional understanding of the record-keeping process of the business with
respect to the specific entry, transaction, or declaration contained in the
document.’” Houston v. State, 957 N.E.2d 654, 658 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)
(quoting Rolland v. State, 851 N.E.2d 1042, 1045 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)), trans.
denied. The witness need not have personally made or filed the record or have
firsthand knowledge of the transaction represented by it to sponsor the exhibit.
Id.[11] Ridley contends that the State failed to demonstrate that Crawford had personal
knowledge of the transaction represented within the chain of custody report.
We disagree. Crawford testified that the chain of custody certificate was
generated in the ordinary course of the laboratory’s business by the computer
system that tracks the chain of custody, from the time the evidence enters the
laboratory until it leaves, for each evidence sample that is delivered to the
laboratory for testing; and maintains all such records in a computer system such
that the chain of custody records are accessible to the laboratory’s forensic
scientists. See Tr. p. 92 (“So I’m able to pull up the chain of custody report for
the cases that I work.”). Based on the foregoing testimony, Crawford
demonstrated a functional understanding of the recordkeeping process of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A04-1701-CR-25 | September 8, 2017 Page 8 of 12
laboratory regarding chain of custody. See Houston, 957 N.E.2d at 658. The
trial court properly admitted the chain of custody report as a business record.
[12] Ridley also argues that the chain of custody report was not properly
authenticated. “The requirement of authentication or identification as a
condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support
a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Davenport v.
State, 749 N.E.2d 1144, 1148 (Ind. 2001). Absolute proof of authenticity is not
required. In re Paternity of B.B., 1 N.E.3d 151, 156 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). When
evidence establishes a reasonable probability that an item is what it is claimed
to be, the item is admissible. Id. Indiana Evidence Rule 901(b) provides “[b]y
way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are
examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements
of this rule” and includes “(9) Evidence About a Process or System.”
[13] At trial, Crawford testified at-length regarding the laboratory’s processes for
intake, labeling, securing, maintaining chain of custody records, analysis,
preparing reports, and returning tested evidence to the contributing agencies.
Her testimony established the laboratory’s “process or system.” See Ind. Evid.
R. 901(b). Therefore, the chain of custody report was properly authenticated
and properly admitted into evidence by the trial court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A04-1701-CR-25 | September 8, 2017 Page 9 of 12
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[14] Ridley argues there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. 2 When
reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we neither reweigh evidence nor
judge the credibility of witnesses. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 871 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2007). We consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and
any reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Glotzbach v. State, 783 N.E.2d
1221, 1226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). We will affirm a conviction unless we
conclude that no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Stokes v. State, 922 N.E.2d 758, 763 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.
[15] Ridley contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the CI was
adequately searched and monitored during the controlled buys. Specifically,
Ridley contends that the CI was “out of the detective’s sight” during each
controlled buy and “could have recovered supposed contraband he previously
had hidden and hidden the money given to him by the detective.” Appellant’s
Br. p. 23. He also claims that the police “never saw an actual exchange take
place”; that none of the police-issued controlled buy money was recovered from
2
Ridley’s sufficiency argument is partly predicated upon the purported inadmissibility of the
chain of custody report, which we have found was properly admitted. He contends that the
only bindle that contained heroin should never have been admitted into evidence because the
chain of custody was defective. Absent the bindle containing heroin, Ridley contends,
insufficient evidence supports his conviction on count 1. The “defective” chain of custody, he
argues, also calls into question whether “the other packages sent to the lab could have been
mixed or otherwise mistaken for other packages.” Appellant’s Br. p. 23.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A04-1701-CR-25 | September 8, 2017 Page 10 of 12
him; and that the CI had previously been convicted of a crime involving
dishonesty. See Appellant’s Br. p. 23.
[16] A properly conducted controlled buy will permit an inference that the defendant
had prior possession of a controlled substance. Watson v. State, 839 N.E.2d
1291, 1293 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). We have described a controlled buy as
follows:
A controlled buy consists of searching the person who is to act as
the buyer, removing all personal effects, giving him [of her] money
with which to make the purchase, and then sending him [or her]
into the residence in question. Upon his [or her] return he [or she]
is again searched for contraband. Except for what actually
transpires within the residence, the entire transaction takes place
under the direct observation of the police. They ascertain that the
buyer goes directly to the residence and returns directly, and they
closely watch all entrances to the residence throughout the
transaction. Id. A pat-down search of the CI or buyer is sufficient,
and a strip search or complete cavity search is not necessary.
Id.[17] At trial, the CI and Captain Knecht testified that on four separate occasions,
Ridley sold bindles of purported narcotics to a police CI. Each controlled buy
transaction was conducted under police surveillance; the CI was searched
before and after each controlled buy; the CI was given money before each drug
buy; after each controlled buy, the CI delivered purported drug bindles obtained
from Ridley to the police—including one that was found to contain heroin; that
the CI no longer had the buy money after each encounter with Ridley. The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A04-1701-CR-25 | September 8, 2017 Page 11 of 12
State also introduced audio recordings of conversations between Ridley and the
CI before and during the controlled buys as well as contemporaneous
photographs of Ridley and the CI.
[18] Ridley’s arguments—that that the CI was inadequately searched or monitored;
that the police did not witness actual exchanges; that controlled buy money was
not recovered; and that the CI had a history of dishonesty—are clear requests
for us to assess the credibility of witnesses and to reweigh the evidence, which
we cannot and will not do. See Rutherford, 866 N.E.2d at 871. The evidence
was sufficient to support Ridley’s convictions.
Conclusion
[19] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the chain of custody
certificate. Sufficient evidence exists to support Ridley’s convictions. We
affirm.
[20] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 54A04-1701-CR-25 | September 8, 2017 Page 12 of 12