FRYDRYCH v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Andrew Joseph Frydrych was convicted of Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine and Level 2 felony attempted dealing in methamphetamine and was sentenced to an aggregate fifteen-year sentence. Frydrych challenges his convictions on appeal, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence a portion of his interview with law enforcement in which he had admitted to having committed prior dealing activity. Without deciding whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence, we conclude that because there was significant independent evidence of Frydrych's guilt, the admission of the challenged evidence was, at most, harmless. We therefore affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2024, Domenico Fumarola, a “federal agent, postal investigator” for the northern district of Indiana with the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), was responsible for monitoring packages and tracking suspicious packages that contain firearms or illicit drugs, especially those targeted through dark-web investigations. Tr. Vol. II p. 27. The USPIS targets vendors in certain states, like California, because a large amount of illicit drugs that are sent through the mail originate in California. In completing his investigations, Agent Fumarola considers whether the package has a fictitious sender name and address, the mail history of the recipient, package weight, and delivery method. In his experience, a priority-mail package is more likely to contain illicit drugs than express or ground. For packages containing illicit drugs, the sender often pays for the postage with cryptocurrency and tightly packages the contents with items such as dryer sheets, mylar film, or soy sauce in an attempt to mask the scent.

[3] Agent Fumarola uses an algorithm to identify packages ordered from the dark web. When a user creates a profile and orders illicit drugs from a dark-web marketplace, the website disguises the user's IP addresses. In these transactions, the buyer messages the seller with a name and a physical address to send the package. Then, cryptocurrency is exchanged through the marketplace using, for example, Monero cryptocurrency. The seller will then send an encrypted message to advise the buyer when the package has been sent; both individuals must have a code from the other to unencrypt the messages. Agent Fumarola identifies hundreds of suspicious packages coming into the South Bend area each month.

[4] On November 19, 2024, Agent Fumarola identified a suspicious package sent through USPS priority mail from a fictitious business in California and addressed to “Andy Ocean[ ]” at 4956 Scenic Drive in South Bend. Tr. Vol. II p. 38. The postage for this package had been paid using cryptocurrency. Agent Fumarola confirmed that Frydrych was associated with the Scenic Drive address.

[5] Agent Fumarola reviewed the mail history for 4956 Scenic Drive and confirmed that between February and November of 2024, twenty-four other parcels had been sent to the Scenic Drive address, with these other packages having been sent to Andy Ocean from fictitious addresses and the postage paid through cryptocurrency. Some of those packages had “had indications of having illicit narcotics from the same sender with the name Andy Ocean[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 40. Eighteen of the packages had been sent from California. All of the packages that had been sent before the package in question had been successfully delivered.

[6] In investigating the package in question, Agent Fumarola had a K-9 perform a free-air sniff on the suspicious parcel and the dog alerted to the smell of illicit drugs. Agent Fumarola obtained a federal warrant to search the parcel and “upon opening the parcel, there was a white bubble enveloped and within that was a clear vacuum-sealed bag. And then within that vacuum-sealed clear plastic bag there was a plastic Ziploc bag with a crystallized substance inside.” Tr. Vol. II p. 42. The parcel weighed “approximately 137 grams.” Tr. Vol. II p. 45. The substance subsequently tested positive for methamphetamine, which, without packaging, weighed 116.24 grams and was ninety-eight percent pure. In place of the methamphetamine, Agent Fumarola “put 137 grams of salt rock within a plastic baggie, heat-sealed it, put it within the parcel.” Tr. Vol. II p. 46. He also added “a GPS tracker so [authorities would] have geofence of the location” of the controlled delivery, as well as motion and light sensors. Tr. Vol. II p. 46.

[7] Prior to delivery of the package, USPIS partnered with the South Bend Police Department to obtain an anticipatory search warrant to be executed when the parcel was accepted and crossed the threshold of the residence. The controlled delivery was executed on November 20, 2024, by an undercover agent acting as a postal worker. At the time of delivery, Ryan Rush, an investigator with the South Bend Police Department's Strategic Focus Unit, was parked in a church parking lot across the street conducting surveillance of Frydrych's home. Investigator Rush observed the postal truck arrive with the parcel, saw the undercover agent knock on the front door, and noted that no one answered the door. As the undercover agent began to walk away, Frydrych exited the garage, took the parcel from the undercover agent, went inside the garage, and closed the garage door.

[8] Once the parcel crossed the threshold of the house, Officer Andrew Ream, also of the South Bend Police Department's Strategic Focus Unit, secured the rear of the residence and, once the home had been secured, entered and searched the home. During the search, police discovered Frydrych's identification, digital scales containing residue, drug paraphernalia, a cutting tray, and an airsoft handgun in Frydrych's bedroom. In the garage, police located the parcel sitting on top of a tool chest; a safe that contained a small plastic baggie with a white powder, clear plastic baggies, and a digital scale; paraphernalia containing residue; a bag of clear plastic Ziplock bags; and foil. On a table in the garage, police located

an envelope with [Frydrych's] name, Andrew Frydrych. It also says ‘The Ocean’ underneath of it which [Officer Ream] believed was crucial to the initial investigation, the warrant. The package was being delivered to an Andy Ocean not Andrew Frydrych. So[, Officer Ream] believed this showed that [Frydrych] used ‘The Ocean’ as a potential name.

Tr. Vol. II p. 134.

[9] Indiana State Police forensic analyst, Melinda McNair, tested the following items that had been recovered from Frydrych's home during the search: two plastic containers, cellophane wrap in a plastic bag, and residue from a cutting tray. Each of these items tested positive for methamphetamine. The total net weight of the methamphetamine recovered from the items was “11.63 grams.” Tr. Vol. II p. 160.

[10] After Frydrych was arrested, Agent Fumarola, then-Postal Inspector Eric Madre,¹ Investigator Rush, and South Bend Police Lieutenant Brandon Schmidt interviewed him. Initially, Frydrych told the officers that he had never gone by the name Andy Ocean. Later, Frydrych admitted that Andy Ocean is his nickname. During the course of the interview, Frydrych initially claimed that he was not familiar with the dark web but later admitted that he had used it to make purchases from the Archetyp marketplace. Archetyp can only be accessed through the dark-web browsers Onion and Tor. Frydrych also admitted that he uses “Monero” and “Maxamar” cryptocurrencies to make purchases on the dark web. Tr. Vol. II p. 56. Frydrych admitted that he had been buying methamphetamine from an individual who he referred to as L in South Bend “for about three or four years[ ]” but that L had “left the area” after his crew had been busted. Tr. Vol. II p. 55. Frydrych also admitted that he and a friend had previously purchased methamphetamine from the dark web.

[11] On November 21, 2024, the State charged Frydrych with Count I–Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine and Count II–Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine. On May 15, 2025, the State amended the charging information to include Count III–Level 2 felony attempted dealing in methamphetamine. On August 11, 2025, the State amended Count II down to a Level 4 felony. That same day, Frydrych filed a motion in limine to exclude certain statements made by Frydrych during his interview with law enforcement pursuant to Evidence Rule 404(b). These statements included Frydrych's “admissions that at unspecified times in the past he had acted as a ‘middle-man’ in drug transactions, not for money but for some small part of the drugs, to feed his own drug habit.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 40. The trial court denied Frydrych's motion.

[12] During his opening statement, Frydrych's counsel stated that

[t]he evidence is going to show that [Frydrych] possessed methamphetamine. It is going to show that he used methamphetamine. What it is not going to show is that he was a methamphetamine dealer. He had a problem. He was using regularly, and the evidence they found at his house bears that out. It doesn't bear out that he was selling or dealing methamphetamine. He was a user of methamphetamine.․ [Frydrych] used and abused methamphetamine but he's not and was not a dealer of methamphetamine.

Tr. Vol. II pp. 19–21. Afterwards, outside of the presence of the jury, Frydrych's counsel asked the trial court to reconsider its denial of Frydrych's motion in limine. The trial court responded “[w]ell, in your opening I would note -- because you said he's not a dealer. The evidence would be that he was a user of meth. I don't know. Is that enough to open the door to talk about the other things? Well, you think about it.” Tr. Vol. II p. 22.

[13] Investigator Rush testified that in his experience as a narcotics investigator, the average methamphetamine user purchases “anywhere from three and a half grams to five grams” per purchase. Tr. Vol. II p. 90. Investigator Rush indicated that when investigating a potential drug dealer, he looks for items including scales, currency, paraphernalia,² the presence of illicit drugs, and “[c]orner baggies, plastic sandwich baggies with the corners tore off which is indicative of small narcotic sales.” Tr. Vol. II p. 91. Investigator Rush testified that in his experience, “a hundred grams of methamphetamine” indicated “dealer weight” as opposed to the weight a common user would possess. Tr. Vol. II p. 103. Investigator Rush further indicated that a hundred grams of methamphetamine is “a quarter pound of meth, your average user is not carrying around a quarter pound of meth. It's indicative of dealing.” Tr. Vol. II p. 103.

[14] When the State called Lieutenant Schmidt to testify, Frydrych objected to the admission of Exhibit 101A, which included his statements outlined in the motion in limine. Frydrych renewed his argument that his admission during his interview that he had previously committed dealing activity by acting as a so-called “middle man” was inadmissible under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b)(2) as a prior bad act.

[15] Specifically, Frydrych's counsel argued

it's prior bad acts. And, you know, I know what the Court said earlier about -- okay, that, you know, I said to the jury he's not a -- you know, he's not a dealer. But that's a colloquial way. I mean when people think of dealers, you know, they think of people, you know, selling to make money.․ So I think it's a prior bad act. And what is especially prejudicial is in that interview afterwards Brandon Schmidt says over and over that, well, you just admitted to drug dealing.

Tr. Vol. II pp. 198–99. The State responded that

if the Court considers it another bad act, it is admissible under 404(b)(2). It is evidence of intent. Intent is intrinsically in play because of the nature of the charge, Possession with Intent to Deliver. The defense opening made it clear that defense is putting into issue intent not another element, possession or knowing, with respect to Count I.

Tr. Vol. II p. 199. In overruling Frydrych's objection, the trial court stated

[s]ee, I would have a tendency to agree with the State on this. Had you not said, hey, he's not a dealer, the evidence is he's a user of meth. So you creating the issue that we're dealing with a user. We're not dealing with a dealer of meth. And then I don't know if it was the postal inspector but I think it was Mr. -- it was Officer Ream or Rush. I forget who worked for the -- not the evidence person but the other person talked about -- you asked him specifically, well, you know, what kind of amounts would you be looking at if you were a user or as opposed to just somebody who is selling drugs. And was the amount found would that be something that would be used for individual use. So you have kind of thrown that out there. And I do think that the State has the right to refute that over your objection. It's prejudicial. I get that. But, you know, most evidence against the defendant is.

And so based on that, I'm going to allow him to get into it over your objection.

Tr. Vol. II pp. 199–200. The trial court admitted Exhibit 101A over Frydrych's objection.

[16] After Exhibit 101A was played for the jury, Lieutenant Schmidt testified that the street value of an ounce of methamphetamine in South Bend varies between “a hundred to three hundred dollars an ounce.” Tr. Vol. II p. 206. Lieutenant Schmidt indicated that “[a]n ounce is a decent amount[ ]” and that four ounces is “quite a bit.” Tr. Vol. II p. 206. Lieutenant Schmidt further explained that an eight ball ³ “is three and a half grams[ ]” and, in his experience, it is more common “to have users, addicts, to have like eight balls or grams on them at a time rather than an ounce or ounces.” Tr. Vol. II p. 206.

[17] At the conclusion of Frydrych's trial, the jury found him guilty as charged. After considering the parties’ arguments regarding double jeopardy, on September 26, 2025, the trial court entered judgments of conviction on Counts I and III and sentenced Frydrych to a term of fifteen years for each, with the sentence for Count III to be served concurrently with the sentence for Count I.

Discussion and Decision

[18] The admission of evidence is a matter that we generally “leave to the discretion of the trial court.” Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 259–60 (Ind. 2013). “We review these determinations for abuse of that discretion and reverse only when admission is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party's substantial rights.” Id. at 260. “We will not reweigh the evidence and will resolve all conflicts in favor of the trial court's ruling.” Schnitzmeyer v. State, 168 N.E.3d 1041, 1044 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). Furthermore, “we will not reverse the decision to admit or exclude evidence if that decision is sustainable on any ground.” Carpenter v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1075, 1078 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.

[19] Frydrych contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the portion of Exhibit 101A that included his statements relating to his prior dealing activity. Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b)(1) provides that “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” However, “[t]his evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Ind. Evidence Rule 404(b)(2).

[20] We need not decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the challenged portion of Exhibit 101A, however, because we conclude that its admission was, at most, harmless.

Generally, errors in the admission of evidence are to be disregarded unless they affect the substantial rights of a party. In viewing the effect of the evidentiary ruling on a defendant's substantial rights, we look to the probable impact on the fact finder. The improper admission is harmless error if the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction. Moreover, any error in the admission of evidence is not prejudicial, and is therefore harmless, if the same or similar evidence has been admitted without objection or contradiction.

Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1238 (Ind. 2012) (internal brackets, citations, and quotation omitted).

[21] In this case, the State presented overwhelming evidence of Frydrych's guilt. On November 19, 2024, Agent Fumarola identified a suspicious package sent through USPS priority mail from a fictitious business in California and addressed to “Andy Ocean[ ]” at 4956 Scenic Drive in South Bend. Tr. Vol. II p. 38. The postage for the package had been paid for with cryptocurrency. Agent Fumarola also identified that between February and November of 2024, twenty-four other parcels had been sent to the Scenic Drive address, with postage paid through cryptocurrency, from fictitious addresses, and addressed to Andy Ocean. Some of those packages had “had indications of having illicit narcotics from the same sender with the name Andy Ocean[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 40. The substance recovered from the package that is at issue in this case subsequently tested positive for methamphetamine. Without packaging, it weighed 116.24 grams and was ninety-eight percent pure. Frydrych admitted to law enforcement officers that Andy Ocean is his nickname and that he had previously used cryptocurrency to make purchases from the dark web, including the purchase of methamphetamine.

[22] During the search of Frydrych's home, police discovered Frydrych's identification, digital scales containing residue, drug paraphernalia, a cutting tray, and an airsoft handgun in Frydrych's bedroom. In the garage, police located the parcel sitting on top of a tool chest; a safe that contained a small plastic baggie with a white powder, clear plastic baggies, and a digital scale; paraphernalia containing residue; a bag of clear plastic Ziplock bags; and foil. In addition, papers discovered in the garage included both Frydrych's name and the name Andy Ocean. Some of the items recovered from Frydrych's home were tested and each of these items tested positive for methamphetamine. The total net weight of the methamphetamine recovered from the tested items was “11.63 grams.” Tr. Vol. II p. 160.

[23] In addition, Investigator Rush testified that in his experience as a narcotics investigator, the average methamphetamine user purchases “anywhere from three and a half grams to five grams” per purchase. Tr. Vol. II p. 90. Investigator Rush testified that in his experience, “a hundred grams of methamphetamine” indicated “dealer weight” as opposed to the weight a common user would possess, and that a hundred grams of methamphetamine is “a quarter pound of meth, your average user is not carrying around a quarter pound of meth. It's indicative of dealing.” Tr. Vol. II p. 103. He further indicated that the presence of scales, currency, paraphernalia, the presence of illicit drugs, and “[c]orner baggies, plastic sandwich baggies with the corners tore off which is indicative of small narcotic sales[ ]” can be indications of dealing rather than personal use. Tr. Vol. II p. 91. Lieutenant Schmidt also indicated that “[a]n ounce is a decent amount[ ]” and that four ounces is “quite a bit.” Tr. Vol. II p. 206. Lieutenant Schmidt further explained that in his experience, it is more common “to have users, addicts, to have like eight balls or grams on them at a time rather than an ounce or ounces.” Tr. Vol. II p. 206.

[24] Again, “[t]he improper admission is harmless error if the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.” Hoglund, 962 N.E.2d at 1238. Frydrych's conviction for dealing in methamphetamine is overwhelmingly supported by the above-discussed independent evidence of guilt. As such, any potential error in the admission of the challenged evidence is, at most, harmless as its probable effect on the jury was minor enough to avoid affecting Frydrych's substantial rights. See generally Jordan v. State, 244 N.E.3d 445, 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (“Error is harmless if its probable effect on the jury, given all the evidence in the case, is minor enough to avoid affecting the substantial rights of the parties.”).

[25] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   As of the date of trial, then-Inspector Madre had become a Special Agent with the DEA.

2.   Types of paraphernalia include “[s]moking devices, needles, anything that can introduce a substance into the body.” Tr. Vol. II p. 92.

3.   The term “[e]ight ball is street slang for 3.5 grams” of an illicit drug. Guadian v. State, 743 N.E.2d 1251, 1253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied.

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., Kenworthy, J., concur.