Jaylin J Smith v. State of Indiana

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 6, 2024
• Docket: 24A-CR-00204
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana Jaylin J. Smith, FILED Dec 06 2024, 9:49 am Appellant-Defendant CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals v. and Tax Court

State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

December 6, 2024 Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-CR-204 Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court The Honorable Steven P. Meyer, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79D02-2106-F2-000021

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-204 | December 6, 2024 Page 1 of 9 Opinion by Judge DeBoer Judges May and Tavitas concur.

DeBoer, Judge.

Case Summary [1] After an extensive police investigation involving a confidential informant and

several controlled buys of heroin and fentanyl, Jaylin J. Smith was convicted of

Level 2 felony Conspiracy to Commit Dealing in a Narcotic Drug, 1 Level 6

felony Obstruction of Justice, 2 and Level 6 felony Maintaining a Common

Nuisance. 3 Smith presents one issue on appeal, which we restate as whether the

trial court abused its discretion by denying Smith’s motion to exclude evidence

or, alternatively, to continue the trial, as a sanction for late discovery

disclosures. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In May and June of 2021, a confidential informant engaged in a series of

controlled buys of heroin and fentanyl from Smith and his co-conspirator in

Lafayette, Indiana. After Smith’s arrest, officers searched an apartment which

1 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(2); -1(e)(1) 2 I.C. § 35-44.1-2-2(a) 3 I.C. § 35-45-1-5(c)

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-204 | December 6, 2024 Page 2 of 9 Smith had been observed to enter and exit, and discovered more than 100

grams of heroin, 3 grams of cocaine, and 2 digital scales. An additional 91

grams of heroin was later found at Smith’s co-conspirator’s residence.

[3] The State charged Smith with Level 2 felony Conspiracy to Commit Dealing in

a Narcotic Drug, six Counts of Level 3 felony Dealing in a Narcotic Drug

within 500 Feet of a School, Level 2 felony Dealing in a Narcotic Drug in

Excess of 10 Grams, Level 3 felony Possession of a Narcotic Drug, Level 4

felony Dealing in Cocaine, Level 6 felony Possession of Cocaine, Level 6 felony

Obstruction of Justice, and Level 6 felony Maintaining a Common Nuisance.

The trial was delayed for defense continuances twice, by the parties’ agreement

three times, and due to court congestion three times. During these

continuances, Smith changed counsel three times, with his final trial counsel

entering her appearance on August 4, 2023. Smith’s jury trial was scheduled to

begin on December 11, 2023. Three days before trial, on Friday, December 8,

2023, Smith filed a motion to continue or exclude evidence, claiming that on

that same date, the State had provided him with “substantial additional

discovery including, but not limited to, 11 additional videos.” Appellant’s App.

Vol. 2 at 142. On the morning of trial and prior to the selection of the jury, the

trial court addressed Smith’s motion. The State informed the court that the

recently provided evidence of 11 videos detailing Smith’s arrest, and 36

photographs of the currency used in the transactions and seized from Smith,

had been disclosed to Smith’s prior counsel and that this evidence had been

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-204 | December 6, 2024 Page 3 of 9 available for download “via evidence.com” for 180 days. Tr. Vol. 2 at 39. The

State acknowledged that after that period, new links would have to be

requested. In this case, the State had “reshared those links” with Smith’s final

trial counsel when preparing for the pretrial conference. Id. Following the

State’s representations, the trial court denied Smith’s request to continue the

trial or to exclude the evidence.

[4] On the second day of trial, following voir dire, Smith again moved to “exclude

any of the exhibits that were submitted to [him] on Friday, December 8th.” Id.

at 186. Smith insisted the State identify the evidence provided “on Friday so

[he] can make a specific objection to exclude those.” Id. The State confirmed

that “these are all exhibits that were disclosed in discovery.” Id. at 185. The

trial court again denied Smith’s motion but noted Smith’s continuing objection

to the exhibits’ admissibility.

[5] Prior to the State presenting the photographs, Smith objected and asked the

court to exclude the State’s photographs of the money used by the confidential

informant and seized from Smith, claiming the evidence was belatedly

disclosed. The State again explained it had shared the evidence electronically

in a link provided to Smith’s prior counsel and had reshared the link with

Smith’s final trial counsel the Friday prior to trial. Smith’s counsel conceded

she did not know whether Smith’s prior counsel had received the link. The

State clarified that the photographs of the currency had also been “documented

in multiple supplemental reports that were provided to defense counsel” and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-204 | December 6, 2024 Page 4 of 9 pointed to a specific report that had been included in the State’s “initial

discovery” to Smith’s first trial counsel. Tr. Vol. 4 at 84, 86. The trial court

admitted the evidence over Smith’s objection, finding that “the police were in

possession of the photos that matched some of the [] buy money [and that]

appears to have been disclosed in previous police reports. So that information

was available. The newest part is the actual photos. But I don’t see that as

prejudicial . . . since the information itself was [] disclosed in prior discovery.”

Id. at 87. Looking through his previous counsel’s file, Smith’s counsel observed

the police report was not included in the file but instead a note had been

attached to the State’s initial discovery list that the police report was missing

from the documents the State had provided. The State told the trial court that

Smith’s prior counsel had not advised the State the report was missing from the

disclosed documents. Concluding that its “ruling stands,” the trial court

inquired with Smith’s counsel, “if you received this from [prior counsel], and if

that notation was in there, . . .[d]id you ever file a follow-up with the State?”

Id. at 88, 89. Referring to her limited resources, Smith’s counsel responded that

she had only been on the case for four months.

[6] On January 17, 2024, following the jury trial, the trial court entered convictions

for Conspiracy to Commit Dealing in a Narcotic Drug, Obstruction of Justice,

and Maintaining a Common Nuisance. Smith was sentenced to an aggregate

sentence of 26 years with 20 years executed in the Department of Corrections

and six years suspended to probation.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-204 | December 6, 2024 Page 5 of 9 Discussion and Decision [7] Smith contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to

exclude the evidence or, alternatively, to continue the trial, based on the late

disclosures of the videos and photographs of the money. A trial court has broad

discretion to manage discovery, and we presume that the court acted fairly and

equitably. State v. Lyons, 211 N.E.3d 500, 505 (Ind. 2023). An appellate court

will reverse a trial court’s ruling on belatedly disclosed evidence only where the

trial court has committed clear error resulting in prejudice. Berry v. State, 715

N.E.2d 864, 866 (Ind. 1999). “Exclusion of the evidence is an extreme remedy

and is to be used only if the State’s actions were deliberate and the conduct

prevented a fair trial.” Id. “Five factors guide our review of a trial court’s

rulings on late disclosed evidence, namely, ‘when the parties first knew of the

evidence; the importance of the evidence; the prejudice resulting to the

opposing party; the appropriateness of a less severe remedy such as a

continuance; and whether the opposing party would be unduly surprised and

prejudiced by admission.’” See Luckett v. State, 223 N.E.3d 1170, 1176 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2023) (quoting Perryman v. State, 80 N.E.3d 234, 249 (Ind. Ct. App.

2017)).

[8] Despite Smith’s claim that the State’s evidence was not disclosed until the

Friday before trial, the State specifically showed that the officers’ possession of

the photos matching the money used by the confidential informant to the

currency seized from Smith had been disclosed in a report included with the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-204 | December 6, 2024 Page 6 of 9 State’s initial discovery, as well as in “multiple supplemental reports that were

provided” to Smith’s first counsel. Tr. Vol. 4 at 84, 86. These reports were

transferred to Smith’s final trial counsel four months before the trial. The State

further clarified that the electronic link to the evidence was shared with Smith’s

prior counsel who was given downloading privileges for 180 days, and re-

shared with final counsel that Friday. See Indiana Trial Rule 26(A)(3) (Parties

may obtain discovery by electronically stored information). Thus, the State

disclosed the evidence in hardcopy format to Smith’s counsel as soon as it

became aware of it, and at the very latest, when it became electronically

available at least 180 days before trial. The fact that the transfer of discovery

between Smith’s past and final trial counsel might not have been flawless has no

bearing on whether the State timely provided its discovery to Smith. Although

these photographs clearly linked Smith to the controlled buy transactions, they

are cumulative to the officers’ testimony about Smith’s possession of the

currency used by the confidential informant, which Smith did not challenge.

While Smith now objects to the prejudicial effect that the evidence of large

sums of money might have on the jury, “the possession of large amounts of

cash is not in and of itself illegal.” See Lewis v. Putnam Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 125

N.E.3d 655, 659 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (rejecting the argument that “there must

be a crime committed in the context of the possession of this much cash”).

Despite the less severe remedy of a continuance being advocated for by Smith’s

final trial counsel, the trial court was within its discretion to deny it. Turning to

the final factor of our review, we point out that Smith should not have been

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-204 | December 6, 2024 Page 7 of 9 unduly surprised by the evidence because his final trial counsel had received the

defense file four months before trial and that file not only contained a specific

note about a missing police report she could have requested, but also numerous

references to the same evidence provided to Smith in supplemental discovery.

Based on the five factors that guide rulings on belatedly disclosed evidence,

Smith has not established that a discovery violation occurred, and therefore, the

trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith’s motion. See Luckett,

223 N.E.3d at 1176.

[9] Even if the record could be construed as establishing an untimely disclosure of

evidence by the State, exclusion would only be appropriate if the discovery

violation “was intentional, flagrant, in bad faith, or otherwise reprehensible[,]”

or was meant to unfairly prejudice Smith. Lyons, 211 N.E.3d at 506. Smith

does not direct our attention to anything in the record demonstrating bad faith

or deliberate and prejudicial conduct by the State, nor can we find any such

evidence. Rather, the record indicates the State timely and adequately provided

Smith with the evidence it intended to introduce at trial. See Wheeler v. State, 95

N.E.3d 149, 159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (noting that exclusion of evidence is

generally inappropriate where the discovery violation is not deliberate).

Conclusion [10] Because the State did not commit a discovery violation, the trial court properly

denied Smith’s motion to exclude evidence or, alternatively, to continue the

trial. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-204 | December 6, 2024 Page 8 of 9 Affirmed.

May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Timothy Paul Broden Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

Justin Fredrick Roebel Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-204 | December 6, 2024 Page 9 of 9