MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Jun 18 2018, 11:19 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Matthew J. McGovern Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Lyubov Gore
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Shawn M. Saylor, June 18, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
31A01-1712-CR-2886
v. Appeal from the Harrison Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Joseph L.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Claypool, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
31D01-1608-F4-538
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A01-1712-CR-2886 | June 18, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Shawn M. Saylor appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, for dealing in
methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony, and maintaining a common nuisance, a
Level 6 felony. He presents one issue for our review, namely, whether
application of the incredible dubiosity rule establishes that there is insufficient
evidence to support his convictions.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In June 2016, Brian Stem, a confidential informant, told Detective Steve
Coleman with the Harrison County Sheriff’s Department that he could
purchase methamphetamine from Saylor. Accordingly, on June 15, Detective
Coleman initiated a controlled buy between Stem and Saylor.
[4] On that date, while in the presence of Detective Coleman, Stem placed a phone
call to Saylor’s phone. During that phone call, Stem asked Saylor what he
could purchase for $100. Saylor told Stem to come to his house. After the
phone call ended, officers thoroughly searched Stem and his vehicle and
equipped him with a video-recording device. Stem then drove to Saylor’s
home, purchased 0.92 grams of methamphetamine in exchange for $100, and
left. Stem met Detective Coleman at a predetermined location and delivered
the methamphetamine to him. The entire transaction was audio and video
recorded. Subsequently, the State charged Saylor with one count of dealing in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A01-1712-CR-2886 | June 18, 2018 Page 2 of 5
methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony, and one count of maintaining a
common nuisance, a Level 6 felony.
[5] The trial court held a jury trial on September 19 and 20, 2017. During the trial,
the State presented as evidence the testimony of Detective Coleman and Stem,
the video recording of the controlled buy, and the methamphetamine that Stem
had purchased from Saylor. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found
Saylor guilty of both counts, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly
and sentenced Saylor to an aggregate term of three years in the Department of
Correction, with one year suspended to probation. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Saylor contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his
convictions. Specifically, Saylor contends that there was insufficient evidence
because his convictions were based only on the testimony of Stem, which he
claims was “incredibly dubious.” Under the incredible dubiosity rule, “a court
will impinge on the jury’s responsibility to judge the credibility of witnesses
only when it has confronted ‘inherently improbable’ testimony or coerced,
equivocal, wholly uncorroborated testimony of ‘incredible dubiosity.’” Moore v.
State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 755 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Tillman v. State, 642 N.E.2d 221,
223 (Ind. 1994)). “Application of the incredible dubiosity rule is limited to
cases with very specific circumstances because we are extremely hesitant to
invade the province of the jury.” Smith v. State, 34 N.E.3d 1211, 1221 (Ind.
2015). For the incredible dubiosity rule to apply, there must be: “1) a sole
testifying witness; 2) testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A01-1712-CR-2886 | June 18, 2018 Page 3 of 5
the result of coercion, and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence.”
Moore, 27 N.E.3d at 756.
[7] Here, Saylor specifically contends that Stem’s testimony was incredibly dubious
because it was contradictory and because Stem “was coerced into conducting
the controlled buy[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 13. But we agree with the State that
“the rule of incredible dubiosity is inapplicable to this case[.]” Appellee’s Br. at
9.
[8] First, there was not a “sole testifying witness.” Moore, 27 N.E.3d at 756.
Rather, the State presented the testimony of Detective Coleman, which at least
partially corroborated Stem’s testimony. Still, Saylor contends that the
incredible dubiosity rule applies despite Detective Coleman’s testimony because
Stem “was the sole witness offering the testimony to support the essential
elements of [Saylor’s] convictions.” Reply Br. at 8. We disagree.
[9] Detective Coleman testified that Stem called Saylor while in Detective
Coleman’s presence and asked what he could purchase for $100. Detective
Coleman also testified that he and another officer thoroughly searched Stem
and his vehicle, followed Stem to Saylor’s residence, and then met with Stem at
a predetermined location where Stem gave Detective Coleman a package that
contained methamphetamine. Accordingly, Stem was not the only witness
who offered testimony to support the essential elements of Saylor’s convictions.
[10] Further, there was not “a complete absence of circumstantial evidence” as the
State presented circumstantial evidence that corroborated the witnesses’
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A01-1712-CR-2886 | June 18, 2018 Page 4 of 5
testimony, including the video recording of the controlled buy. Moore, 27
N.E.3d at 756. But Saylor contends that “the video does not provide
independent corroboration of the confidential informant’s testimony.” Reply Br.
at 9 (emphasis in original).
[11] While Saylor is correct that the video does not show Saylor hand Stem the
methamphetamine, our Supreme Court has held that, when evaluating whether
there exists circumstantial evidence of guilt, we do “not require such
circumstantial evidence to independently establish guilt.” Smith, 34 N.E.3d at
1221. And, here, the video recording shows that Stem entered Saylor’s house,
left money on the table, and exited the house with a package that contained
methamphetamine. Further, in addition to the video recording, the State
presented as corroborating evidence the methamphetamine that Stem returned
to Detective Coleman after the controlled buy.
[12] Because there was more than one witness who offered testimony to support the
essential elements of Saylor’s convictions, and because there was not a
complete lack of circumstantial evidence, the incredible dubiosity rule does not
apply. Saylor’s arguments on appeal merely seek to have this court reassess the
weight and credibility of the evidence, which we will not do. The State
presented sufficient evidence to support Saylor’s convictions.
[13] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 31A01-1712-CR-2886 | June 18, 2018 Page 5 of 5