Quinn Edward Thurman, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Following a jury trial, Quinn Edward Thurman was convicted of Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug. Thurman contends that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting two exhibits into evidence and by denying his motion for a directed verdict.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On February 23, 2023, Aaron Gideon was found deceased from an overdose at his Kokomo apartment that he shared with his fiancé, Kelsey Davis. The prior evening, Gideon asked Davis to put money “onto our cash app account”¹ to purchase cocaine and fentanyl for him from Thurman, who he had purchased drugs from on prior occasions. Transcript Vol. 2 at 120. Davis put $125 in the account, transferred it to Thurman, and drove to his Noblesville home to pick up the drugs. She received two plastic baggies from Thurman and drove back to their apartment, where Gideon was waiting for Davis at the door. She handed the baggies to him around 11:30 p.m., and he took them to the bathroom. Davis went to bed and awoke a few hours later to the sound of Gideon falling off the bed. When she realized he was unconscious, she gave him Narcan and called 911.

[4] Kokomo Police Department (KPD) officers responded around 2:20 a.m. They observed Gideon unconscious on the floor, and, despite CPR efforts by officers, he was pronounced deceased at the scene.

[5] Davis gave police permission to collect evidence, including Davis's phone and another phone from a nightstand next to Gideon. Davis informed officers that Gideon had a history of drug use, that she thought he had snorted fentanyl, and that he kept drugs in a drawer of their dresser and in a bathroom drawer. Davis gave a recorded statement to police later that day. Subsequent testing revealed that police recovered 0.42 grams of cocaine and 0.38 grams of fentanyl from the apartment. Gideon's cause of death was determined to be “cocaine, fentanyl, and acetyl fentanyl toxicity with an underlying contributing factor of heart disease and morbid obesity.” Id. at 101.

[6] On April 13, 2023, the State charged Thurman with Level 1 felony dealing in a controlled substance resulting in death (Count 1) and Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug (Count 2).² Relevant here, Count 2 alleged that Thurman knowingly agreed with Gideon and Davis to commit dealing in a narcotic drug in excess of ten grams and that in furtherance of that agreement the following overt acts were performed: Gideon communicated with Thurman through text messages on numerous occasions to arrange for the purchase of fentanyl and cocaine; Gideon and Davis traveled to meet Thurman on numerous occasions to purchase those drugs from him; “Davis paid one hundred dollars per gram for the narcotics using Cash App transactions which totaled $1,260.00 between December 24, 2022 and February 22, 2023”; and on February 22, 2023, Davis drove to Thurman's residence and picked up $125 worth of fentanyl and cocaine from him and thereafter knowingly delivered the narcotics to Gideon. Appendix at 19.

[7] In February 2024, Thurman filed a motion in limine to exclude text messages between Thurman, Davis, and Gideon, arguing that they included hearsay and should be excluded under Ind. Evidence Rule 404(b). The State responded that the charges against Thurman alleged conspiracy associated with multiple drug transactions and that the digital communications, both texts and Cash App transactions that the State intended to introduce, were related to the charged crimes and not prohibited under Evid. R. 404(b), and that statements of co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy are not hearsay. Following a hearing, the court issued an order allowing the State to introduce the digital communications.

[8] At the February 2024 three-day jury trial, the State called thirteen witnesses, including Howard County Deputy Coroner Tamara Cody, who responded to the scene. Cody testified that Davis stated at the scene that she went to Noblesville to get the cocaine and fentanyl for Gideon and that she had “paid $125.00 for it and it was done on an app.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 96.

[9] KPD Detective Austin Bailey, a Celebrite ³ certified operator and physical analyst who runs the KPD digital forensic lab, testified that he performed extractions on the two recovered phones and created reports of the extracted files – including text messages – and provided the reports to KPD Sergeant Andrew Grammer.

[10] Davis ⁴ described that Gideon was often hostile, a manipulator, and that she was afraid of him. She testified that when she met Gideon in 2021, he was using methamphetamine, quit in the summer of 2022, but began using cocaine and fentanyl in the last couple of months of 2022 which continued through February 2023. She testified that “whenever Gideon needed it,” he would text Thurman and that Thurman was, to her knowledge, Gideon's only source for the narcotics. Id. at 125. She recalled there being nine or ten occasions between December and February 2023 that she and Gideon, or either of them, met Thurman to purchase drugs. She explained that the Cash App was “logged in” on both of their phones and that “it would pull directly” from her bank account. Id. at 129. When shown State's Exhibit 7, which listed Cash App transactions from Davis to Thurman for the period of December 24, 2022 to February 22, 2023, Davis confirmed that it accurately reflected dates and amounts of payments to Thurman. She also confirmed that, for that same time period, the payments totaled $1260. Davis testified that her understanding from Gideon was that he paid $100 per gram for the narcotics. On cross-examination, Davis acknowledged Gideon also “loaned money” to Thurman via the Cash App. Id. at 154.

[11] Sgt. Grammer testified that, through search warrants, he obtained Thurman's Cash App records from its parent company, Block Inc., as well as cell phone records and location data from AT&T for Thurman's phone. Sgt. Grammer identified State's Exhibit 7 as a document he created using the certified records that he received from Block, Inc. and listing Cash App transactions from Davis to Thurman for the period of December 24, 2022 to February 22, 2023. Sgt. Grammer explained that, because the records he received from Block Inc. were not in a “user friendly” format, he created State's Exhibit 7 to “put it into a power point type of presentation to make it easier to understand.” Id. at 218. Thurman objected, arguing that the exhibit was not a certified business record, was something that Sgt. Grammer prepared, and was not the best evidence. The trial court admitted Exhibit 7, finding that “[i]t's a work product of the witness” and that Davis, while testifying, had reviewed it and affirmed its contents from her personal knowledge. Id. at 220. The court noted that Thurman, during his case in chief, would have the right to offer the underlying records if he desired to do so.⁵ The State then offered, and trial court admitted, over Thurman's objection, a certification of business records from Block Inc. as Exhibit 13.⁶ Exhibit 7 was presented to the jury on a screen, listing thirteen completed transactions that totaled $1260. As the exhibit's pages were displayed, Sgt. Grammer read through the transactions, noting for the jury that on the evening of February 22, Davis sent $125 to Thurman via Cash App.

[12] During Sgt. Grammer's testimony, the State also offered Exhibit 8, which was another document created by Sgt. Grammer that listed content of text messages between Gideon, Davis, and Thurman on February 22 and 23. Sgt. Grammer testified that he prepared Exhibit 8 from the forensic extractions performed by Detective Bailey on the phones of Davis and Gideon. Thurman objected, asserting that the exhibit was not a certified business record. The trial court admitted Exhibit 8 over Thurman's objection, finding that it was “the witness[’s] own work product from the extraction from the phones.” Id. at 230.

[13] Exhibit 8 was displayed on a screen for the jury, and it listed “Important Messages” between Gideon and Thurman and between Gideon and Davis on the night of February 22 and early morning hours of February 23. Exhibit Vol. at 32-41, 48-53. The messages between Davis and Gideon showed that Davis met Thurman around 10:30 p.m. on February 22, with Gideon twice texting Davis to “hurry the f*ck up” and that she “better be back by 11:30.” Id. at 35, 37. Davis advised Gideon at 10:40 p.m. that she was on her way home. At 11:28 p.m., Gideon texted Thurman asking, “is this sh*t from your normal dude” and noting that it seemed “different.” Id. at 48. Gideon told Thurman that the “slow” – which Sgt. Grammer testified referred to an opiate such as fentanyl or heroin – was “hitting pretty hard,” and Thurman urged “be careful bro” Id. at 49, 52. In the text conversation, Thurman told Gideon “Shit is 100 a pop,” which Sgt. Grammer understood to mean, through his experience and investigations, that the drugs in question were $100 per gram. Id. at 49; Transcript Vol. 2 at 233.

[14] The State also offered State's Exhibit 14, which showed images of text messages, extracted from Gideon's phone, between him and Thurman, in which the two communicated about meeting for narcotics transactions in January and February 2023. Thurman objected to Exhibit 14, “restat[ing]” his previous objection as to text messages, which the court overruled, admitting the exhibit. Id. at 237. Similar to Exhibits 7 and 8, Sgt. Grammer read through the messages for the jury. On January 19, Gideon stated, “I want 2 grams. I'll give you $300 to meet me.” Exhibit Vol. at 73. On February 9, Gideon asked, “Could I get like a gram for a 100?” then “Or a half g of each for $100,” with Thurman replying, “Yupp.” Id. at 86. On February 16, Gideon asked for “[l]ike .25 of feddy and .5 -.75 of coke. Whatever for $125 and I'll tell [Davis] to meet you at the Flying J.” Id. at 99.

[15] At the conclusion of the evidence, Thurman moved for a directed verdict on both charges. Relevant here, he argued as to Count 2 – the conspiracy count – that there was no evidence presented that the total weight of the drugs sold was at least ten grams. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the State “certainly” had made a prima facie case of conspiracy to deal and, as to the ten grams, the court found that such was a question of fact for the jury to decide, given that there was evidence of $1260 in Cash App transactions and of drugs being sold at $100 per gram, as well as evidence that Gideon had loaned money to Thurman through the Cash App account. Transcript Vol. 3 at 40.

[16] The jury found Thurman guilty of the conspiracy to commit dealing charge and not guilty of the dealing resulting in death charge. The trial court sentenced Thurman to seventeen and one-half years of incarceration with seven and one-half years suspended to probation. Thurman now appeals. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary.

Discussion & Decision

1. Admission of Exhibits

[17] Thurman asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted State's Exhibits 7 and 8 as they were hearsay and “not certified business records, but merely PowerPoint presentations prepared by [Sgt.] Grammer.” Appellant's Brief at 10. He maintains that the admission of the exhibits was erroneous as neither exhibit satisfied the business records exception.⁷

[18] Generally, the admission or exclusion of evidence is a determination entrusted to the discretion of the trial court. Smith v. State, 839 N.E.2d 780, 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). We will reverse a trial court's decision only for an abuse of discretion, that is, when the trial court's decision is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Russell v. State, 217 N.E.3d 544, 548 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied.

[19] Thurman urges that “[t]here is no certainty of trustworthiness of [Sgt.] Grammer's PowerPoint presentation that was Exhibit 7,” the series of slides prepared by Sgt. Grammer showing Cash App transfers from Davis to Thurman during the charged time period totaling $1260. Appellant's Brief at 14-15. However, in admitting the exhibit, the trial court relied not just on Sgt. Grammer's testimony that he had relied on the certified records he received from Block Inc, but also on Davis's testimony, based on personal knowledge, confirming the accuracy of the Cash App payments to Thurman for the purchase of drugs, as shown in Exhibit 7. Further, the certification of business records affidavit received from Block Inc., was admitted into evidence, stating that the records Block Inc. provided, and that Sgt. Grammer testified to relying on, were true copies of records of regularly conducted business made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth, by a person with knowledge of these matters, kept in the course of the regular conducted activities of Block, Inc., and that the records provided contained all the documents responsive to the search warrant.

[20] The court informed Thurman that he had the right to introduce the underlying records from Block Inc. in his case in chief if he chose to do so. We recognize that there was an apparent dispute as to whether the State had already produced the records – with the State maintaining that it had done so and Thurman stating that he had not received them. However, there is no indication in the record of Thurman thereafter asking the State to provide them, seeking a continuance to review the records, or otherwise introducing them. On the record before us, we find the court's decision to admit into evidence State's Exhibit 7, which was based on certified business records and not shown to be an inaccurate representation, was not an abuse of discretion.⁸

[21] Thurman also challenges the admission of State's Exhibit 8, which was a multipage exhibit prepared by Sgt. Grammer listing text message content exchanged between Gideon and Davis, while Davis was driving to and from Thurman's residence on the evening of February 22, and between Gideon and Thurman later on February 22 and 23. Thurman argues that the exhibit failed to fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule and should have been excluded, noting “no certification of business records [was] included.” Appellant's Brief at 16. However, Sgt. Grammer created the exhibit from the Cellebrite phone extractions conducted by Detective Bailey on the phones of Gideon and Davis. And Detective Bailey testified to performing those forensic extractions on the two phones collected from Davis and Gideon's apartment and to providing his reports to Sgt. Grammer. We find no abuse of discretion in the admission into evidence of State's Exhibit 8. See Smith v. State, 179 N.E.3d 1074, 1079 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (finding no abuse of discretion in the admission of officer's redacted report that compiled text messages extracted from defendant's phone by another officer).

2. Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict

[22] Thurman contends that the court erred by denying his Ind. Trial Rule 50 motion for directed verdict on Count 2, because “the State did not present prima facie case that at least ten grams of narcotics were delivered” by Thurman. Appellant's Brief at 20.

[23] Because Thurman presented evidence in his defense following the trial court's denial of his motion – calling Sgt. Grammer as a witness – he has waived appellate review of the denial of his motion. See Cox v. State, 19 N.E.3d 287, 290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (stating that defendant who presents evidence after a denial of a motion for a directed verdict made at the end of the State's case waives appellate review of the denial of that motion). However, “we may review waived challenges to the denial of a motion for a directed verdict alternatively as challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence.”⁹ Borroel v. State, 241 N.E.3d 8, 16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied. We have observed that doing so makes sense as we want to assure that a meritorious appeal not be defeated by a procedural error. Cox, 19 N.E.3d at 290 n.5 (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, we will review Thurman's argument as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.

[24] Our standard of review of sufficiency claims is well settled:

Sufficiency of evidence claims warrant a deferential standard, in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility. When there are conflicts in the evidence, the fact-finder must resolve them. We consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. We will affirm a conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value that would lead a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.

Borroel, 241 N.E.3d at 16 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

[25] Thurman's argument is that the State charged him with conspiring to deal over ten grams of narcotics and that it specifically alleged – but failed to show – that Davis paid one hundred dollars per gram for $1260 of narcotics. As a result, he claims, the State did not present evidence that he delivered at least ten grams. Appellant's Brief at 20.

[26] Here, Davis testified to picking up drugs for Gideon from Thurman on six or seven occasions between December 2022 and February 2023 and that Gideon did so on his own several times. And she testified to the accuracy of the thirteen completed Cash App transactions to Thurman between December 24, 2022 and February 22, 2023, and agreed that they totaled $1260. Relying on Davis's testimony that Gideon “loaned money” to Thurman, Thurman argues on appeal that some of the Cash App transactions in State's Exhibit 7 may have been for a loan, not narcotics. Transcript Vol. 2 at 154. However, when Davis was specifically asked if money “ever” was sent to Thurman that was not for drugs, she replied, “I believe so. I believe [Thurman] asked [Gideon] for help at one point, I don't remember what it was for.” Id. at 134 (emphasis added). There is no evidence in the record as to when or in what amount any loans were made on the Cash App account to Thurman. More importantly, Davis confirmed that the transactions shown in Exhibit 7 “match[ed] up to [her] recollection” of the Cash App “payments made” to Thurman for drug purchases during that time period. Id. at 130.

[27] To the extent that Thurman's challenge is that there was not sufficient evidence that Davis “paid one hundred dollars per gram for the narcotics,” as was charged, we disagree. Appendix at 19. Davis testified that it was her understanding from Gideon that he was paying Thurman $100 per gram. The Cash App payments were often in amounts ranging between $75 and $125, for instance: December 24 was $75; December 26 and January 7 and 18 were $100; and January 12 and 16 and February 9 and 22 were $125. Sgt. Grammer testified to his opinion that, per the text messages, the drugs in question were $100 per gram. In the course of the text conversation between Gideon and Thurman on February 22, Thurman advised Gideon that the drugs were “$100 a pop.” Exhibits Vol. at 48, 49. And other texts from Gideon to Thurman in January and February 2023 also reflected that Gideon was paying Thurman $100 per gram for fentanyl and cocaine. For instance, on February 9, Gideon asked, “Could I get like a gram for a 100?” then “Or a half g of each for $100,” and Thurman replied, “Yupp.” Exhibit Vol. at 86.

[28] In sum, we find that the State presented sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the jury could have found that Thurman dealt more than ten grams of narcotics in the relevant time period. Accordingly, the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Thurman of Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug.

[29] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Cash App is a mobile app used for person-to-person money transfers by which an individual “loads” money into their Cash App account and transfers the funds to another's Cash App account. Transcript Vol. 2 at 211.

2.   The State charged Davis with the same two offenses. Her charges were pending at the time of trial in this case.

3.   Cellebrite is a “digital forensics tool” used to examine devices and extract data, which, using a physical analyzer program, is placed into a readable format such as a PDF. Id. at 105.

4.   Davis testified under an immunity agreement.

5.   The State indicated that it had sent Thurman's counsel a disk with all records received; Thurman's counsel maintained he had not received the Block Inc. records. Id. at 219-20.

6.   The certification affidavit was admitted but no records were attached to it.

7.   Ind. Evidence Rule 803(6) provides that the following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if: (A) the record was made at or near the time by--or from information transmitted by--someone with knowledge; (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and (E) neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

8.   Thurman does not raise a best evidence rule argument on appeal.

9.   We note this is so, “even where the appellant raises the directed verdict argument alone, without a concomitant sufficiency argument.” Cox, 19 N.E.3d at 290 n.5.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Judges Vaidik and Scheele concur. Vaidik, J. and Scheele, J., concur.