WHITE v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Andrew D. White (“White”) was convicted after a jury trial of dealing in methamphetamine ¹ as a Level 2 felony and possession of paraphernalia ² as a Class C misdemeanor, and was adjudicated a habitual offender.³ White appeals only his dealing in methamphetamine conviction, claiming that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of his intent to deal methamphetamine. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 19, 2023, the Vincennes Police Department (“VPD”) responded to a call about a person who was “making some odd statements” and stating that he had possibly hurt or killed a person. Tr. Vol. 3 p. 106. Several VPD officers, including Sergeant Cody Martin (“Sergeant Martin”) and Officer Robert Kincaid (“Officer Kincaid”), responded to the scene where they encountered Jeremy Moore (“Moore”), who seemed to be intoxicated or having a mental health crisis. See id. at 130. Moore told the officers that he may have hurt or killed someone inside his apartment. Moore gave the officers his address and told them he lived there with White. Officers then proceeded to the address to conduct a welfare check.

[3] Upon arriving at the address, the officers encountered a home that had been subdivided into three separate apartment units. After receiving no response from the first unit, the officers went to the second unit. Again, they received no response, but the door to the apartment was unlocked. The officers entered the apartment and announced themselves as police officers numerous times. See id. at 111. After receiving no response, they entered into a “fairly small apartment.” Id. As the officers made their way into the apartment, they walked through the kitchen and observed on the kitchen table a “glass smoking device” that they knew was “generally use[d] to ingest something into the body, [like] a controlled substance.” Id. at 112; Ex. Vol. 1 pp. 7–8. Based on their training and experience, they believed the glass smoking pipe was used for smoking methamphetamine. See Tr. Vol. 3 p. 113.

[4] As the officers proceeded through the apartment, they observed the door to the bedroom was “slightly closed.” Id. Looking through the crack in the door, they observed an individual, later identified as White, lying face down on the bed and unresponsive. White's upper torso was on the bed while his lower body was lying on the floor. Although White was initially unresponsive, the officers eventually awakened White and removed him from the bedroom to the kitchen.

[5] The search of White resulted in the discovery of marijuana in White's pocket and “eight individually wrapped bags of methamphetamine” in White's jacket pocket. Id. at 133; Ex. Vol. 1 pp. 4–5, 12. Law enforcement later obtained a warrant to search the apartment, where they discovered White's identification card, additional glass smoking devices, torch lighters, and mail with White's name and address. See Ex. Vol. 1 pp. 7–11.

[6] On March 20, 2023, White was charged with Count I: dealing in methamphetamine, as a Level 2 felony. The State also alleged that White was a habitual offender. The State later added two additional counts, as follows: Count II: possession of methamphetamine, as a Level 4 felony; and Count III: possession of paraphernalia, as a Class C misdemeanor.

[7] On May 24, 2023, a two-day bifurcated jury trial commenced, where White represented himself. During the trial, the State called a forensic scientist (“the Analyst”) from the Indiana State Police Laboratory to testify regarding narcotics that were found on White's person. The eight bags found on White's person consisted of an aggregate weight of 25.82 grams. However, only three of the eight bags, consisting of an aggregate weight of 10.22 grams, were tested at the lab. The Analyst explained the decision to only test three of the eight bags as follows:

With controlled substances in the State of Indiana the laws that concern them, there are certain weights that change the charges involved. For methamphetamine specifically there is 1 gram, 5 grams, 10 grams[,] and then 28 grams. Those are the different levels where the charges or the type of felony that can be charged changes. So[,] for the State of Indiana the laboratory, we have a lot of drug cases. So[,] in [sic] to help expedite testing, we will test just up to the highest weight that we can reach. So[,] in this case, I tested three bags because that got me over 10 grams and the remainder weight would not get me to that 28 grams. So[,] I did not test the other five bags.

Tr. Vol. 3 p. 143.

[8] The State also presented testimony from Detective Kody Waggoner (“Detective Waggoner”), who specialized in drug investigations and had extensive training in narcotics interdiction. He explained that, based on his training and experience, all eight of the bags discovered on White's person “appear[ed] ․ consistent with methamphetamine[.]” Id. at 156. Detective Waggoner explained that it appeared that “these eight baggies [were] divided out to approximately 3.5 grams, commonly considered an 8-ball.” Id. at 161. Detective Waggoner approximated the street value of a single baggie to be roughly $120 and that all eight baggies together would be “$1,000 worth of drug contraband.” Id. Based on the packaging and the weight of methamphetamine in each bag, Detective Waggoner believed “it show[ed] intent to deal[.]” Id. at 162.

[9] At the conclusion of the guilt phase, the jury found White guilty of all three counts. The trial court entered judgment of conviction as to each count, and the jury was then instructed as to the habitual offender phase. After hearing evidence and argument, the jury found White to be a habitual offender, and the trial court entered judgment thereon. At that point, the State moved to vacate the judgment of conviction of the Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine count based upon double jeopardy concerns. See id. at 219–21. The trial court thereafter vacated that conviction. See id. at 221.

[10] On June 22, 2023, the trial court held the sentencing hearing and imposed an aggregate sentence of thirty years in the Indiana Department of Correction. White now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[11] White challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction for dealing in methamphetamine as a Level 2 felony. “Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims trigger a deferential standard of review in which we ‘neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, instead reserving those matters to the province of the jury.’ ” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied.). “A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if ‘there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (quoting Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015)).

[12] Here, White was convicted of dealing in methamphetamine as a Level 2 felony. Indiana Code section 35-48-4-1.1(a)(2) provides that: “A person who: ․ (2) possesses, with intent to ․ deliver ․ methamphetamine, pure or adulterated; commits dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 5 felony[.]” The offense is elevated to a Level 2 felony if “the amount of the drug involved is at least ten (10) grams[.]” Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(e)(1).

[13] White confines his argument to whether the State proved he intended to deliver the methamphetamine. See Appellant's Br. p. 10. The State may rely on circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence to prove a person's intent to deliver illegal drugs. Durstock v. State, 113 N.E.3d 1272, 1279 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (citing Richardson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1222, 1227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied), trans. denied. For example, “[p]ossessing a large amount of a narcotic substance is circumstantial evidence of intent to deliver.” Richardson, 856 N.E.2d at 1227 (citing Davis v. State, 791 N.E.2d 266, 270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied.). “The more narcotics a person possesses, the stronger the inference that he intended to deliver it and not consume it personally.” Id. Furthermore, our court has previously concluded that “evidence that a large quantity of drugs is divided into small, individual portions rather than stored in one large container also supports the inference that the drugs are packaged for sale rather than personal use.” Elvers v. State, 22 N.E.3d 824, 835 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Davis, 791 N.E.2d at 270)). However, regardless of the quantity of contraband involved or its packaging, intent to deliver may be “established by considering the behavior of the relevant actor, the surrounding circumstances, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from them.” J.L.H. v. State, 642 N.E.2d 1368, 1369 (Ind. 1994) (citing Chandler v. State, 581 N.E.2d 1233, 1237 (Ind. 1991)).

[14] White argues that because only 10.22 grams (three baggies) of methamphetamine was tested by the lab, only those three baggies can be considered, and the remaining five baggies must be disregarded. White then argues that possession of only three baggies or 8-balls of methamphetamine is consistent with personal use and fails to support an inference of intent to distribute. We disagree. The testimony of the Analyst provided a reasonable explanation as to why only three of the eight baggies were tested. In addition, Detective Waggoner testified that the substances in the untested bags were consistent with those found in the tested bags, and the substances in all of the bags were consistent with methamphetamine. This evidence is sufficient to support an inference, at least for the purpose of demonstrating an intent to deliver, that all of the bags contained methamphetamine.

[15] In support of his argument, White points to Isom where a search of the defendant's vehicle yielded ten individualized plastic baggies that contained a total of .88 grams of cocaine and a “glass pipe used to smoke cocaine[.]” 589 N.E.2d 245, 248 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). While acknowledging cocaine packaged in individualized plastic baggies was consistent with the manner in which cocaine is packaged for sale, this court noted that plastic baggies were also “the type of containers in which cocaine is commonly purchased.” Id. at 247. Based on the small quantity of cocaine involved and the presence of a smoking pipe that looked like it had been heavily used, this court held there was insufficient evidence to support an inference of intent to deal and reversed the conviction. See id. (contrasting the circumstances with other dealing cases involving significantly greater quantities of cocaine). Isom is distinguishable, however, because here the evidence supported a reasonable inference that White possessed eight packages of methamphetamine with an aggregate weight of 25.82 grams, which was roughly $1,000 worth of contraband. Furthermore, there was testimony that the quantity of methamphetamine White possessed was consistent with dealing activity. Our task is to look at the evidence most favorable to the verdict.

[16] Here, evidence most favorable to the verdict established that eight individually wrapped baggies of methamphetamine were found in White's jacket pocket. See Ex. Vol. 1 pp. 4–5, 12. Based on Detective Waggoner's training and experience, each baggie appeared to contain methamphetamine and were individually packaged in separate 3.5 gram (an “8-ball”) baggies, which is consistent with how methamphetamine is commonly sold.

[17] In the end, White asks us to focus on evidence favorable to his position, namely that it is possible that the methamphetamine found in White's possession to have been for White's own personal use. However, we must view the evidence and the reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the verdict and avoid “substitut[ing] our own judgment for that of the jury.” Richardson, 856 N.E.2d at 1227–28.

[18] We therefore conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that White possessed the methamphetamine with intent to deliver it. The State presented sufficient evidence to support White's conviction, and his arguments to the contrary are requests to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Hancz-Barron, 235 N.E.3d at 1244.

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(a)(2), (e)(1).

2.   I.C. § 35-48-4-8.3(b)(1).

3.   I.C. § 35-50-2-8.

Foley, Judge.

May, J. and Altice, J., concur.