William R. Heidt, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] William R. Heidt appeals his convictions for Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a legend drug, and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana. He argues that the State failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody for the drugs and thus the report from the lab analysis of the drugs was inadmissible. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] One night in June 2023, Frankfort Police Department Officer Freddy Martinez was on patrol and saw Heidt, who was riding a bike, fail to stop at a stop sign near the duplex where he lived. Officer Martinez initiated a traffic stop, and Heidt pulled over behind the duplex. During the stop, Heidt consented to a search of his person. While patting Heidt down, Officer Martinez found a cigarette carton, and Heidt said there “might be” a “roach” (“a burnt Marijuana cigarette”) inside. Tr. pp. 94, 131. Sergeant Andrew Snyder, who'd arrived at the scene to assist Officer Martinez, opened the carton and found a roach at the bottom. Sergeant Snyder handcuffed Heidt and read him his Miranda rights.

[3] Officer Martinez asked Heidt whether he would find anything in his home if he applied for a search warrant, and Heidt said he “would find roaches.” Id. at 96. Officer Martinez then read Heidt his Pirtle warning and asked for consent to search his home, which Heidt gave. Sergeant Snyder and Officer Martinez searched Heidt's bedroom and found a plastic container with white pills and a “crystal like little rock substance,” which Officer Martinez knew from his training and experience to be methamphetamine. Id. at 99. He field-tested the crystal substance, and it was presumptively positive for methamphetamine. Heidt said the pills, which were later determined to be Trazadone, were from an old prescription, but the container wasn't a prescription bottle. Sergeant Snyder also found a pipe inside Heidt's dresser, and Heidt admitted that he used the pipe to smoke marijuana. While Sergeant Snyder was searching the dresser, Officer Martinez found a “black jar with Marijuana inside of it.” Id. at 144.

[4] Officer Martinez secured the drugs and pipe in his patrol car and took Heidt to the county jail. He then went to the police station to log the evidence. He photographed the substances, weighed them, and put each in its own envelope with the case number, substance type, and Heidt's name on it. Each substance was logged with a unique property number. Officer Martinez taped the envelopes shut, wrote his initials over the tape, and secured the envelopes in an evidence locker. The evidence lockers are “one way lockers,” meaning that once they're closed and locked, only the property-room manager can access them from the other side. Id. at 156. The Frankfort Police Department later provided the drugs to the Indiana State Police Laboratory for testing.

[5] The State charged Heidt with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a legend drug, and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana.¹ A jury trial was held in September 2025. Officer Martinez testified as detailed above. During the testimony of State Police Laboratory forensic scientist Brandy Cline, who performed the analysis here, the State moved to admit Cline's lab report. Heidt objected based on “improper chain of custody.” Id. at 139. The trial court allowed additional questioning from the State, and Cline testified that the State Police Laboratory Evidence Specialist had received the substances in sealed envelopes from “a representative of the Frankfort Police Department” and placed them in a vault at the lab, where they remained until testing. Id. at 141. After Cline's explanation, the court overruled Heidt's objection and admitted the lab report into evidence.

[6] Keshia Head was the Property and Evidence Room Manager for the Frankfort Police Department at the time of trial but not during the investigation. She testified about the Department's procedures for handling physical evidence, which were largely the same as they were in 2023. She explained that each item of evidence has its own custody record that shows every time it was moved and who handled it. Head testified that she reviewed the custody records for the three substances and didn't see “notations of any irregularities or tampering.” Id. at 161. The trial court admitted the custody records into evidence over Heidt's objection.

[7] The jury found Heidt guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 365 days, with 60 days executed and 305 days suspended to probation.

[8] Heidt now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Heidt contends that the trial court erred in admitting Cline's lab report. Generally, trial courts have broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and we review only for an abuse of that discretion. Chambless v. State, 119 N.E.3d 182, 188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.

[10] Heidt argues that the lab report shouldn't have been admitted because the State failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody for the drugs.² To establish a proper chain of custody, the State must give reasonable assurances that the evidence remained in an undisturbed condition. Troxell v. State, 778 N.E.2d 811, 814 (Ind. 2002). For fungible items like drugs, an adequate foundation is laid when the whereabouts of an exhibit are shown from the time it came into the possession of the police. Mateo v. State, 981 N.E.2d 59, 66 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. The State need not establish a perfect chain of custody, and once the State “strongly suggests” the exact whereabouts of the evidence, any gaps go to the weight of the evidence and not to admissibility. Troxell, 778 N.E.2d at 814. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the handling of evidence by officers as well as a presumption that officers exercise due care in carrying out their duties. Id.

[11] Here, Officer Martinez and Sergeant Snyder found a crystal substance, white pills, and plant material in Heidt's bedroom. Officer Martinez secured the substances in his patrol car while he took Heidt to jail and then brought them to the police station. He logged each of the substances with a unique property number and put them in envelopes with the case number, substance type, and Heidt's name on them. Officer Martinez then taped the envelopes shut, wrote his initials over the tape, and put the envelopes in a one-way evidence locker, which can only be accessed by the property-room manager once they're closed and locked. Forensic scientist Cline testified that when the State Police Laboratory Evidence Specialist received the envelopes from a representative of the Frankfort Police Department, they were still sealed. The Evidence Specialist placed the envelopes in a vault, where they remained until Cline tested them. The custody records for each substance, which were admitted into evidence at trial, showed each date and time the substances were moved and who the custodian was. See Exs. 6-8. And although Property and Evidence Room Manager Head wasn't in that role at the time of the investigation, she reviewed the custody records for the three substances and testified that she didn't see “notations of any irregularities or tampering.” This evidence provided a reasonable assurance that the drugs remained undisturbed as they passed from the custody of one person to the next. The State strongly suggested the exact whereabouts of the drugs at all times, thereby establishing a proper chain of custody.

[12] Heidt argues that there are “glaring gaps” in the chain of custody because the “representative of the Frankfort Police Department” who provided the drugs to the State Police Laboratory for testing and the Evidence Specialist who received the drugs didn't testify and were never identified. Appellant's Br. p. 8. But as noted above, the State need not establish a perfect chain of custody. See Troxell, 778 N.E.2d at 814. Heidt's arguments go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the lab report into evidence.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Heidt was also charged with and convicted of Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, but he does not challenge that conviction on appeal.

2.   Heidt repeatedly refers to the challenged evidence as “the drug evidence” without clearly explaining what “the drug evidence” is. Appellant's Br. pp. 4, 8-14. The drugs themselves were never offered into evidence. Heidt references his objections to both Cline's lab report and the Franklin Police Department chain-of-custody forms, but most of his argument focuses on the lab analysis of the drugs. To the extent that Heidt is separately challenging the admission of the custody forms, he has waived this claim by failing to make a cogent argument. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a).

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, J., and Foley, J., concur.