Shawn M. Saylor v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 18, 2018
• Docket: 31A01-1712-CR-2886
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 18 2018, 11:19 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Matthew J. McGovern Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Shawn M. Saylor, June 18, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 31A01-1712-CR-2886 v. Appeal from the Harrison Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Joseph L. Appellee-Plaintiff. Claypool, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 31D01-1608-F4-538

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A01-1712-CR-2886 | June 18, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Statement of the Case [1] Shawn M. Saylor appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, for dealing in

methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony, and maintaining a common nuisance, a

Level 6 felony. He presents one issue for our review, namely, whether

application of the incredible dubiosity rule establishes that there is insufficient

evidence to support his convictions.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] In June 2016, Brian Stem, a confidential informant, told Detective Steve

Coleman with the Harrison County Sheriff’s Department that he could

purchase methamphetamine from Saylor. Accordingly, on June 15, Detective

Coleman initiated a controlled buy between Stem and Saylor.

[4] On that date, while in the presence of Detective Coleman, Stem placed a phone

call to Saylor’s phone. During that phone call, Stem asked Saylor what he

could purchase for $100. Saylor told Stem to come to his house. After the

phone call ended, officers thoroughly searched Stem and his vehicle and

equipped him with a video-recording device. Stem then drove to Saylor’s

home, purchased 0.92 grams of methamphetamine in exchange for $100, and

left. Stem met Detective Coleman at a predetermined location and delivered

the methamphetamine to him. The entire transaction was audio and video

recorded. Subsequently, the State charged Saylor with one count of dealing in

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A01-1712-CR-2886 | June 18, 2018 Page 2 of 5 methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony, and one count of maintaining a

common nuisance, a Level 6 felony.

[5] The trial court held a jury trial on September 19 and 20, 2017. During the trial,

the State presented as evidence the testimony of Detective Coleman and Stem,

the video recording of the controlled buy, and the methamphetamine that Stem

had purchased from Saylor. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found

Saylor guilty of both counts, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly

and sentenced Saylor to an aggregate term of three years in the Department of

Correction, with one year suspended to probation. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [6] Saylor contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his

convictions. Specifically, Saylor contends that there was insufficient evidence

because his convictions were based only on the testimony of Stem, which he

claims was “incredibly dubious.” Under the incredible dubiosity rule, “a court

will impinge on the jury’s responsibility to judge the credibility of witnesses

only when it has confronted ‘inherently improbable’ testimony or coerced,

equivocal, wholly uncorroborated testimony of ‘incredible dubiosity.’” Moore v.

State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 755 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Tillman v. State, 642 N.E.2d 221,

223 (Ind. 1994)). “Application of the incredible dubiosity rule is limited to

cases with very specific circumstances because we are extremely hesitant to

invade the province of the jury.” Smith v. State, 34 N.E.3d 1211, 1221 (Ind.

2015). For the incredible dubiosity rule to apply, there must be: “1) a sole

testifying witness; 2) testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A01-1712-CR-2886 | June 18, 2018 Page 3 of 5 the result of coercion, and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence.”

Moore, 27 N.E.3d at 756.

[7] Here, Saylor specifically contends that Stem’s testimony was incredibly dubious

because it was contradictory and because Stem “was coerced into conducting

the controlled buy[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 13. But we agree with the State that

“the rule of incredible dubiosity is inapplicable to this case[.]” Appellee’s Br. at

9.

[8] First, there was not a “sole testifying witness.” Moore, 27 N.E.3d at 756.

Rather, the State presented the testimony of Detective Coleman, which at least

partially corroborated Stem’s testimony. Still, Saylor contends that the

incredible dubiosity rule applies despite Detective Coleman’s testimony because

Stem “was the sole witness offering the testimony to support the essential

elements of [Saylor’s] convictions.” Reply Br. at 8. We disagree.

[9] Detective Coleman testified that Stem called Saylor while in Detective

Coleman’s presence and asked what he could purchase for $100. Detective

Coleman also testified that he and another officer thoroughly searched Stem

and his vehicle, followed Stem to Saylor’s residence, and then met with Stem at

a predetermined location where Stem gave Detective Coleman a package that

contained methamphetamine. Accordingly, Stem was not the only witness

who offered testimony to support the essential elements of Saylor’s convictions.

[10] Further, there was not “a complete absence of circumstantial evidence” as the

State presented circumstantial evidence that corroborated the witnesses’

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A01-1712-CR-2886 | June 18, 2018 Page 4 of 5 testimony, including the video recording of the controlled buy. Moore, 27

N.E.3d at 756. But Saylor contends that “the video does not provide

independent corroboration of the confidential informant’s testimony.” Reply Br.

at 9 (emphasis in original).

[11] While Saylor is correct that the video does not show Saylor hand Stem the

methamphetamine, our Supreme Court has held that, when evaluating whether

there exists circumstantial evidence of guilt, we do “not require such

circumstantial evidence to independently establish guilt.” Smith, 34 N.E.3d at

1221. And, here, the video recording shows that Stem entered Saylor’s house,

left money on the table, and exited the house with a package that contained

methamphetamine. Further, in addition to the video recording, the State

presented as corroborating evidence the methamphetamine that Stem returned

to Detective Coleman after the controlled buy.

[12] Because there was more than one witness who offered testimony to support the

essential elements of Saylor’s convictions, and because there was not a

complete lack of circumstantial evidence, the incredible dubiosity rule does not

apply. Saylor’s arguments on appeal merely seek to have this court reassess the

weight and credibility of the evidence, which we will not do. The State

presented sufficient evidence to support Saylor’s convictions.

[13] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A01-1712-CR-2886 | June 18, 2018 Page 5 of 5