MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Aug 23 2016, 7:32 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
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
Evan K. Hammond Gregory F. Zoeller
Grant County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Marion, Indiana
Karl Scharnberg
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
William McCormick, August 23, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
27A02-1601-CR-88
v. Appeal from the Grant Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Dana J.
Appellee-Plaintiff Kenworthy, Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
27D02-1303-FB-30 and 27D02-
1204-FD-90
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1601-CR-88 | August 23, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] William McCormick appeals his conviction for class B felony dealing in a
schedule II controlled substance. The sole issue presented for our review is
whether the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.
Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On September 28, 2012, Marion Police Department Detectives Jason Thomas
and Mark Stefanatos were working as part of the JEAN Team Drug Task
Force. A confidential informant (‘CI”) contacted supervising Detective
Stefanatos and told him that McCormick would sell the CI pills. The CI was
given purchase money and paired with Detective Thomas, an undercover
officer, to make a controlled buy. Detective Thomas fitted himself with
electronic surveillance equipment before accompanying the CI to the address of
the apartment where McCormick lived. Detective Stefanatos positioned
himself at a gas station across the street from the building so that he could
observe.
[3] When Detective Thomas and the CI arrived at the address, they encountered
McCormick out in front of the building. McCormick stated that “he knew”
Detective Thomas. Tr. at 14. Detective Thomas told McCormick that he did
not think that they knew each other and asked McCormick what his name was.
McCormick replied, “Bill McCormick,” and showed Detective Thomas an I.D.
card with his name and picture. Id. The CI and McCormick entered
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1601-CR-88 | August 23, 2016 Page 2 of 6
McCormick’s apartment while Detective Thomas stayed on the sidewalk.
Although the door of the apartment remained open, Detective Thomas “could
not see them the whole time, but [he] did see Mr. McCormick handing
something to the informant.” Id. at 15.
[4] Detective Thomas and the CI subsequently left and met Detective Stefanatos at
a prearranged meeting place. The CI gave Detective Stefanatos pills that he
had purchased from McCormick. He gave Detective Stefanatos five oblong
yellow pills with a “V” inscribed on one side and “36/01” on the other. Id. at
45-46; State’s Ex. 3. Detective Stefanatos then asked Detective Thomas if he
would feel comfortable making a second purchase from McCormick. Detective
Thomas agreed to go back with the CI to make another purchase from
McCormick. Detective Stefanatos gave Detective Thomas twenty dollars to
make the second purchase.
[5] When Detective Thomas and the CI arrived back at McCormick’s building,
they again met McCormick outside on the sidewalk. The CI asked McCormick
if he had any more of the pills that he had sold to them earlier. McCormick
initially stated that he did not but then immediately stated that he did, as
though he had been joking with the CI about not having any. Both Detective
Thomas and the CI followed McCormick into his apartment. Detective
Thomas informed McCormick that he had twenty dollars, and McCormick told
Detective Thomas that he could buy four ten-milligram yellow “Norcos.” Tr.
at 19. Detective Thomas gave McCormick a $20 bill, and McCormick handed
him four oblong shaped yellow pills with a “V” on one side and “36/10” on the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1601-CR-88 | August 23, 2016 Page 3 of 6
other. Id. at 49; State’s Ex. 2. Detective Thomas and the CI then left and
returned to the prearranged meeting place to give Detective Stefanatos the pills.
[6] The State subsequently charged McCormick with class B felony dealing in a
schedule II controlled substance. Following a trial, the jury found McCormick
guilty as charged. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[7] McCormick challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.
When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we neither reweigh the
evidence nor assess witness credibility. Bell v. State, 31 N.E.3d 495, 499 (Ind.
2015). We look to the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that
support the verdict and will affirm if there is probative evidence from which a
reasonable factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. In short, if the testimony believed by the trier of fact is
enough to support the verdict, then the reviewing court will not disturb the
conviction. Id. at 500.
[8] To prove that McCormick committed class B felony dealing in a schedule II
controlled substance, the State was required to prove that McCormick
knowingly or intentionally delivered a controlled substance, pure or
adulterated, classified in schedule II. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-2(a). Indiana
Code Section 35-48-2-6(b)(1)(K) classifies hydrocodone as a schedule II
controlled substance.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1601-CR-88 | August 23, 2016 Page 4 of 6
[9] McCormick’s sole assertion on appeal is that the State provided insufficient
evidence to prove the identity of the drug that he sold as hydrocodone. It is
well settled that “the identity of a drug can be proven by circumstantial
evidence.” Clifton v. State, 499 N.E.2d 256, 258 (Ind. 1986). Indeed, “[t]he
opinion of someone sufficiently experienced with the drug may establish its
identity, as may other circumstantial evidence.” Vasquez v. State, 741 N.E.2d
1214, 1216 (Ind. 2001).
[10] Here, both Detectives Thomas and Stefanatos identified the pills sold by
McCormick as hydrocodone. Detective Thomas testified that, in his experience
in prior drug investigations, he had seen hydrocodone pills just like the ones
sold to him by McCormick. He further stated that he verified the identity of the
pills by looking them up on “drugs.com” and in the “Drug Bible.” Tr. at 20.
Similarly, Detective Stefanatos testified that he was personally familiar with the
appearance of hydrocodone pills based upon his training and prior experience,
and that he also confirmed the identification of the pills sold by McCormick on
drugs.com. Moreover, McCormick himself referred to the pills as “Norcos,”
which Detective Thomas recognized as the brand name for pills containing
hydrocodone and acetaminophen. Id. at 19. 1 This evidence was more than
sufficient to prove the identity of the drug that McCormick sold as
hydrocodone. See, e.g., Halsema v. State, 823 N.E.2d 668, 673 n.1 (Ind. 2005)
1
As noted by the State, the actual pills delivered by McCormick were admitted into evidence, as was the
entry from drugs.com for acetaminophen and hydrocodone bitartrate, which provided a visual depiction of
the pills.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1601-CR-88 | August 23, 2016 Page 5 of 6
(holding that testimony of officer trained to identify methamphetamine was
alone sufficient evidence that substance at issue was methamphetamine); Boggs
v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855, 865 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (holding that testimony of
officers trained and experienced in identifying drug was alone sufficient
evidence of identity of drug), trans. denied. We conclude that the State presented
sufficient evidence to support McCormick’s conviction. Therefore, we affirm.
[11] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1601-CR-88 | August 23, 2016 Page 6 of 6