Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
JEFF SHOULDERS GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Law Offices of Steven K. Deig, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Evansville, Indiana
ERIC P. BABBS
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
FILED
Nov 16 2012, 9:14 am
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
JERRY KAISER, JR., )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 82A01-1203-CR-124
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE VANDERBURGH SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Robert J. Pigman, Judge
Cause No. 82D02-1107-FB-746
November 16, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY, Judge
Jerry Kaiser appeals his convictions of Class B felony dealing methamphetamine1 and
Class D felony possession of methamphetamine.2 He argues his confession was involuntary
and, thus, the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence discovered as a result
of the confession. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 8, 2011, Officer Craig Pierce went to Kaiser’s residence to investigate a
report there was a methamphetamine lab on the premises. Prior to his arrival at Kaiser’s
house, Officer Pierce discovered there were two outstanding arrest warrants for Kaiser.
Officer Pierce knocked on Kaiser’s door. Kaiser answered the door and stepped outside to
speak with Officer Pierce regarding the narcotics investigation. Kaiser denied knowledge of
such activity, and Officer Pierce called for backup.
Officer Pierce then escorted Kaiser to his police car and confirmed the outstanding
warrants. When Officer Eric Belford arrived, Officer Pierce handcuffed Kaiser and placed
him under arrest based on the outstanding warrants. Officer Pierce asked Kaiser for consent
to search Kaiser’s house, and Kaiser refused. Officer Pierce indicated he was concerned for
the safety of other residents, as there had recently been a methamphetamine lab explosion in
the area. Kaiser told the officers there was methamphetamine in the house, but he was
unsure if there was an active lab.
1
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.
2
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1.
2
Based on Kaiser’s admission, Officer Pierce contacted Detective Heath Stewart of the
Evansville/Vanderburgh County Drug Task Force. Detective Stewart questioned Kaiser and,
based on that conversation and Kaiser’s earlier admission to Officer Pierce, applied for a
search warrant of Kaiser’s home. The search warrant was approved, and officers found a
bottle of Liquid Fire, a can of Coleman fuel, instant cold packs, lithium batteries, two-liter
bottles, one twenty-ounce bottle, salt, coffee filters, an empty pseudoephedrine box and
blister pack, and plastic tubing. Officers identified all of those as items commonly necessary
for the manufacture of methamphetamine. The officers also found a brown substance that
tested positive for methamphetamine.
The State charged Kaiser with Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class
D felony possession of methamphetamine. Kaiser filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the
evidence obtained from the search of his residence, which the trial court denied. Kaiser
renewed his objection to the admission of the evidence during his jury trial. The jury found
Kaiser guilty on both counts. The court entered both convictions and sentenced Kaiser to
fifteen years executed.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Kaiser did not seek interlocutory review of the denial of his motion to suppress but
instead appeals following trial. This issue is therefore “appropriately framed as whether the
trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence at trial.” Lundquist v. State, 834
N.E.2d 1061, 1067 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Our review of rulings on the admissibility of
evidence is essentially the same whether the challenge is made by a pre-trial motion to
3
suppress or by trial objection. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence, and we consider
conflicting evidence most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Id. However, we must also
consider the uncontested evidence favorable to the defendant. Id.
When a defendant challenges the admissibility of his confession,
the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was given
voluntarily. The voluntariness of a confession is determined from the “totality
of the circumstances.” In turn, the “totality of the circumstances” test focuses
on the entire interrogation, not on any single act by police or condition of the
suspect. We review the record for evidence of inducement by way of violence,
threats, promises, or other improper influences.
Washington v. State, 808 N.E.2d 617, 622 (Ind. 2004) (citations and footnote omitted).
Kaiser argues he was improperly influenced to give a confession because Officer Pierce was
“pretty irate,” (Tr. at 58), and threw trash at Kaiser’s feet. Therefore, he asserts, the evidence
gleaned from the search of his residence was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. We
disagree.
Officer Pierce testified he arrested Kaiser and read him his Miranda3 rights after
Officer Belford arrived on the scene, and Kaiser indicated he understood his rights. Officer
Pierce then asked Kaiser if there was a methamphetamine lab in Kaiser’s house, and Kaiser
told him “he had some methamphetamine in the house but he wasn’t sure if there was an
active lab or not.” (Id. at 106.) When asked during the suppression hearing if he threw trash
at Kaiser, Officer Pierce said he did not. After Kaiser admitted there was methamphetamine
3
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), reh’g denied.
4
in the house, Officer Pierce contacted Detective Stewart, who obtained a search warrant,
searched the residence, and found the methamphetamine and many items necessary for its
manufacture that were the basis for Kaiser’s convictions.
Kaiser’s argument is an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.
See Lundquist, 834 N.E.2d at 1067. Therefore, we hold the trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it admitted the evidence found in Kaiser’s home. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
KIRSCH, J., and NAJAM, J., concur.
5