BROWN v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Chasey Jo Brown appeals her conviction for Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine, arguing the trial court erred in admitting evidence of her prior bad acts. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 27, 2019, an officer with the Vincennes Police Department stopped a Chevrolet Cruze with an expired license plate. Brown was the driver and sole occupant of the car, which belonged to Allison Kroeger. After discovering Brown's driver's license was suspended, the officer arrested her for driving while suspended and conducted an inventory search of the car before impounding it. In the driver's side door pocket, the officer found a wallet containing Brown's identification card underneath a blue bank bag containing 18.67 grams of methamphetamine. The officer also found digital scales in the trunk.

[3] The State charged Brown with Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine and being a habitual offender. A jury trial was held in April 2024. The defense theory at trial was that Brown didn't know about the meth in the car and that it likely belonged to Kroeger's boyfriend. During opening statements, defense counsel argued that Brown only had the car for thirty minutes when she was pulled over and it was implausible that she had knowledge of or obtained that large amount of meth in such a short time.

[4] After the State presented its case in chief, the defense called Kroeger. Kroeger testified that she and Brown had become friends a few months before July 2019 and would see each other a couple of times a week. When asked what they did together, Kroeger stated that they would “go to Walmart, tanning, things like that[.]” Tr. Vol. IV p. 11. Kroeger said she didn't know if Brown had a job or any source of income back then. Kroeger testified that she loaned Brown her car on July 27, 2019. Around that time, Kroeger also loaned her car to her boyfriend, Sean, and another friend, Mason. Kroeger testified that although she was a drug user in July 2019, she knew nothing about the drugs found in the driver's side door of her car, she had never been around that quantity of drugs before, and neither she nor her boyfriend sold drugs. Kroeger also denied knowledge of the scales found in the trunk. She acknowledged owning her own scales, which she used to weigh the drugs she bought, but said her scales were at home. When asked if she had seen Sean and Mason with drugs in July 2019, she answered, “Everybody had drugs.” Id. at 31.

[5] Before beginning its cross-examination of Kroeger, the State asked if it could meet with the trial court and defense counsel outside the jury's presence. The State claimed that the defense's questioning of Kroeger opened the door to the State eliciting “otherwise inadmissible evidence” under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) about Brown's drug activities:

Fundamentally, I think that the State would point to the case law which says that, “A party may open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence by presenting similar evidence that leaves the trier of fact with a false or misleading impression of the facts that have been related.” And the State believes that that's exactly what's happened at this point. We have the impression that [Kroeger] is a drug user, she's hanging around with drug users. What has not been asked, what's not been clarified [is that] she was getting her drugs from Chasey Brown, the Defendant. She's clear in her deposition that's where she received her drugs. She was on the receiving end of the meth. She was not the dealer. She was receiving meth from the dealer, Chasey Brown. The State believes that now the door has been opened ․

Id. at 34-35. The State added that the jury had been given “the impression that Allison Kroeger and Chasey Brown hung out to go to Walmart and tanned together” but that it was “[Kroeger] and her friends who [we]re the drug users,” not Brown. Id. at 35. The trial court agreed with the State that the defense had opened the door and allowed the State to present evidence about Brown's drug activities.

[6] Kroeger then testified that she was addicted to meth in July 2019, that she had never seen or been in possession of meth in the quantity recovered from her car, that Brown provided meth to her and was her sole supplier in July 2019, that she had seen Brown provide meth to other people around that time, and that she and Brown used meth together around that time. Kroeger explained that her friendship with Brown started when Brown provided meth to her friends.

[7] The jury found Brown guilty of Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine and being a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced Brown to ten years for the Level 4 felony, enhanced by eight years for being a habitual offender, for a total of eighteen years (with five years suspended to probation).

[8] Brown now appeals her conviction.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Brown contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence that she was a drug user and dealer. We review a trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Espinoza v. State, 859 N.E.2d 375, 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

[10] Brown argues she did not open the door to the admission of evidence about her drug activities. “Opening the door refers to the principle that where one party introduces evidence of a particular fact, the opposing party is entitled to introduce evidence in explanation or rebuttal thereof, even though the rebuttal evidence otherwise would have been inadmissible.” Sampson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 985, 992 n.4 (Ind. 2015). Evidence that opens the door “must leave the trier of fact with a false or misleading impression of the facts related.” Cameron v. State, 22 N.E.3d 588, 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quotation omitted). “When that happens, the State may introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence if it is a fair response to evidence elicited by the defendant.” Id. (quotation omitted).

[11] The State argues that Brown opened the door to the evidence because “her theory at trial was that she had no knowledge of the drugs and because her direct examination of [Kroeger] left the jury with a misleading impression.” Appellee's Br. p. 9. We agree with the State. Defense counsel asked Kroeger questions on direct examination establishing that Kroeger, her boyfriend, and Mason were drug users and that Kroeger was covering for her boyfriend. This fostered an impression that Brown had a wholesome relationship with Kroeger that was limited to running errands together instead of Brown being integral to a group of friends whose friendship revolved around the abuse of meth. This misleading impression opened the door to the admission of evidence that Brown was actually Kroeger's drug dealer and the two of them regularly got high together. The State was entitled to clarify the nature of the friendship between Kroeger and Brown and elicit testimony that their friendship was not just to trips to Wal-Mart and tanning. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence about Brown's drug activities.¹

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Brown does not argue that even if she opened the door to evidence of her drug activities, the probative value of that evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Indiana Evidence Rule 403.

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Scheele, J., concur.