Ronald Graham v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 31, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-1346
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 31 2018, 11:16 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Darren Bedwell Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Attorney General Appellate Division Indianapolis, Indiana Caroline G. Templeton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ronald Graham, December 31, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1346 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Alicia A. Gooden, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge The Honorable Richard Hagenmaier, Commissioner Trial Court Cause No. 49G21-1702-F3-6381

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1346 | December 31, 2018 Page 1 of 9 Case Summary [1] Ronald Graham appeals his convictions for three counts of level 4 felony

dealing in a narcotic drug. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion by

denying his motion for a continuance. Concluding that Graham suffered no

prejudice, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On January 24, 2017, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”)

Detective Daryl Jones, working undercover, telephoned Graham to arrange the

purchase of two grams of heroin. Detective Jones and Graham met at an

automotive shop parking lot. Graham arrived at the parking lot in a maroon

Malibu. Graham got into Detective Jones’s vehicle, Detective Jones gave

Graham $200, and Graham gave Detective Jones what appeared to be heroin.

The same scenario was repeated on February 1 and 14, 2017, except that

Graham was in different vehicles.

[3] During all three transactions, Detective Jones wore audio recording equipment,

and in the last transaction, he drove a car with a video camera inside. Detective

Richard Hemphill conducted surveillance of all three buys and created a photo

array from which Detective Jones identified Graham as the person who sold

him heroin. Detective Hemphill learned where Graham lived and observed two

of the vehicles that Graham had been seen in at that address.

Detective Jones took the substances he procured from the three buys to the

IMPD property room, where personnel performed preliminary testing, which

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1346 | December 31, 2018 Page 2 of 9 reported that all three substances contained heroin (“IMPD preliminary lab

reports”). The IMPD preliminary lab reports yielded the following weights: the

substance from the January 24 transaction weighed 2.17 grams, and the

substances from the February 1 and 14 transactions each weighed 1.65 grams.

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 23-24 (probable cause affidavit). On February 15,

2017, police arrested Graham as he was leaving the auto shop parking lot. On

February 16, 2017, the State charged Graham with level 3 felony possession of

a narcotic drug, three counts of level 4 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, three

counts of level 6 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, class A misdemeanor

carrying a handgun without a license, and class B misdemeanor possession of

marijuana.

[4] On March 6, 2018, the State dismissed all the charges except the level 4 felony

dealing charges, which alleged that Graham knowingly or intentionally

delivered at least one but less than five grams of pure or adulterated heroin. On

March 8, 2018, Graham’s trial was held. That morning, defense counsel

requested a continuance because the State was planning to introduce late-

discovered evidence regarding lab testing of the substances that Graham sold to

Detective Jones during the three buys. The prosecutor explained to the trial

court that the previous day, Detective Hemphill had informed him that the lab

report that was disclosed to Graham during discovery did not contain results

regarding the substances recovered during the three buys; instead, that lab

report contained lab results regarding the drugs found on Graham when he was

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1346 | December 31, 2018 Page 3 of 9 arrested.1 The prosecutor informed the trial court that as soon as he learned of

the error, he informed defense counsel and had the Marion County Forensic

Agency (“Crime Lab”) conduct testing overnight, which would be complete by

the end of the hour. The prosecutor further stated that the IMPD preliminary

lab reports indicated that the substances contained heroin, and he had already

been informed by the Crime Lab’s head chemist, Glen Maxwell, that testing of

one substance was complete and confirmed that it contained heroin. The

prosecutor noted that defense counsel had stipulated to the admission of the

IMPD preliminary lab reports.

[5] Defense counsel objected that she had not had a chance to review the evidence

or depose Maxwell and expressed concerns that the Crime Lab’s rushed testing

might not have conformed to normal testing procedures. The trial court

declined the initial request for a continuance but informed defense counsel that

she would have an opportunity to talk to Maxwell before the presentation of

evidence “for however long they needed,” and that it would revisit the matter if

there was anything out of the ordinary regarding the procedures used by the

Crime Lab to test the substances. Tr. Vol. 2 at 7.

[6] After defense counsel spoke with Maxwell, she again objected to the Crime Lab

reports and requested either exclusion of the reports or a continuance. Defense

counsel conveyed the following concerns: the IMPD preliminary lab reports

1 The record does not reveal the nature of this lab report. Presumably, this lab report is not an IMPD preliminary lab report.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1346 | December 31, 2018 Page 4 of 9 showed different weights than the Crime Lab reports; other substances were

present in the samples that the Crime Lab did not identify; and the Crime Lab

testing was conducted too quickly. Defense counsel argued that the admission

of the Crime Lab testing at that late stage left Graham with no opportunity to

independently test the evidence, which impaired his right to confront and cross-

examine witnesses. The trial court observed that defense counsel had received

the IMPD preliminary lab reports, which showed that the substances from all

three buys contained heroin and weighed more than one gram, yet the defense

had not sought to test or weigh the evidence prior to trial. The trial court

concluded that defense counsel’s concerns addressed the weight of the evidence

rather than its admissibility and denied Graham’s request for exclusion and for

a continuance.

[7] During trial, Maxwell testified that the substance from the first buy contained

heroin and weighed 1.35 grams, the substance from the second buy contained

heroin and weighed 1.14 grams, and the substance from the third buy contained

heroin and weighed 1.56 grams. Id. at 123-25. On cross-examination, defense

counsel questioned Maxwell as to the typical time it would take to complete the

testing done in this case and how long he actually took to perform the tests on

the substances from the three buys. Id. at 126-27. Maxwell explained that it

usually took an hour to perform the test on a substance and that he had spent

about two hours testing the three substances in this case. Id. at 127. Defense

counsel asked Maxwell whether there were other substances in the heroin, and

he replied that there were but that he did not identify them. Id. Defense

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1346 | December 31, 2018 Page 5 of 9 counsel then asked him if there was a test to identify the other substances and

determine their weight and whether he had performed such a test in this case.

Id. at 128. Maxwell answered that there was such a test, but that he had not

performed it. Id. Defense counsel also asked Maxwell about the weight

discrepancies between the testing done in the IMPD property room and the

testing done by the Crime Lab and what would cause such discrepancies. Id.

Maxwell answered that he had seen weight discrepancies in the past; he did not

know what procedure the property room personnel used, but he did know that

they sometimes weighed drug evidence in its packaging or simply performed a

“rough weight.” Id. at 128-29.

[8] In closing argument, defense counsel emphasized that Maxwell had just tested

the substances that day, even though the buys occurred in January and

February 2017; that it usually takes an hour to perform the testing, but Maxwell

performed the testing on all three samples in two hours; and that there were

impurities in the samples and Maxwell knew it. Id. at 144.

[9] The jury found Graham guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Graham to

an aggregate term of twelve years. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [10] Graham argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a

continuance. “Rulings on non-statutory motions for continuance lie within the

discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only for an abuse of that

discretion and resultant prejudice.” Maxey v. State, 730 N.E.2d 158, 160 (Ind.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1346 | December 31, 2018 Page 6 of 9 2000). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the

logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court.” Tolliver v.

State, 922 N.E.2d 1272, 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. “We will not

conclude that the trial court abused its discretion unless the defendant can

demonstrate prejudice as a result of the trial court’s denial of the motion for

continuance.” Stafford v. State, 890 N.E.2d 744, 750 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

Motions to allow more time for preparation “require a specific showing as to

how the additional time would have aided counsel.” Zanussi v. State, 2 N.E.3d

731, 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

[11] To convict Graham of level 4 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, the State was

required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally delivered a narcotic drug,

pure or adulterated, weighing at least one gram but less than five grams. Ind.

Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(c). Graham argues that there was a significant discrepancy

in the weight of the substance from the first buy, namely that the IMPD

preliminary lab report indicated that the substance weighed 2.17 grams, but the

Crime Lab report indicated that it weighed only 1.35 grams. He contends that

he could not have anticipated that the Crime Lab testing would yield such a

different result, and a continuance “would have allowed counsel to investigate

the discrepancy in the reported weight of the drug samples, perhaps by taking

depositions of the property room staff, or to question the State’s newly-

disclosed witness Maxwell about the testing process he used.” Appellant’s Br.

at 12. The State argues that reversal is unwarranted because Graham is unable

to demonstrate prejudice. We agree with the State.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1346 | December 31, 2018 Page 7 of 9 [12] Here, the record shows that initially defense counsel had stipulated to the

admission of the IMPD preliminary lab reports, which showed that the

substances contained heroin and weighed between one and five grams. When

the State sought to introduce the results of the Crime Lab testing through

Maxwell, the trial court provided defense counsel the opportunity to speak with

Maxwell before the presentation of evidence “for however long they needed.”

Tr. Vol. 2 at 7. Defense counsel availed herself of the opportunity and was able

to conduct an effective cross-examination of Maxwell during trial. Through her

cross-examination, Maxwell admitted that he spent less than the typical amount

of time on the testing; that there were impurities in the samples that had not

been identified or weighed; and that the weight determined by the Crime Lab

testing was different from that shown by the IMPD preliminary lab testing. In

closing argument, defense counsel emphasized the last-minute and rushed

character of the Crime Lab testing and the existence of impurities in the

samples. She also stressed that the weight of the substance from the first buy as

indicated by the Crime Lab testing was well below that indicated in the IMPD

preliminary lab report, and she explained that the weight of the substances was

important because Graham was charged with dealing between one and five

grams. Although the two reports yielded different weights, both yielded

weights that were within the charged range. Accordingly, we cannot say that

Graham suffered any prejudice from the trial court’s denial of his motion for a

continuance. Therefore, we affirm his convictions.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1346 | December 31, 2018 Page 8 of 9 [13] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1346 | December 31, 2018 Page 9 of 9