MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 21 2018, 9:26 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Yvette M. LaPlante Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Keating & LaPlante, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Evansville, Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Rondre Cook, August 21, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
82A05-1712-CR-2907
v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Mary M. Lloyd,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
82D03-1706-F6-3378
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1712-CR-2907 | August 21, 2018 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary and Issue
[1] Following a jury trial, Rondre Cook was found guilty of possession of cocaine,
a Level 6 felony. The jury subsequently found that Cook was an habitual
offender. The trial court sentenced Cook to one year with the Indiana
Department of Correction for the possession conviction, enhanced by two years
for being an habitual offender. Cook raises one issue for our review: whether
the trial court erred in admitting evidence of cocaine found in his possession.
Concluding that the State met its burden to establish an adequate chain of
custody for the cocaine, we affirm the trial court’s admission of the challenged
evidence.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On June 4, 2017, Officer Craig Pierce of the Evansville Police Department was
working his second job as an off-duty courtesy officer at a local apartment
complex. Pierce monitored the grounds of the apartment complex and
routinely stopped people whom he did not know to be residents so that he could
determine if they had good reason to be there. Toward the end of his shift,
Pierce observed Cook enter the back of one apartment building. Cook stood
out to Pierce because Pierce did not recognize Cook as a resident of the
complex, Cook was moving quickly, and Cook was sweating profusely despite
not wearing a shirt.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1712-CR-2907 | August 21, 2018 Page 2 of 8
[3] Pierce lost sight of Cook but observed him minutes later exiting another
building on the complex grounds. Pierce approached Cook and asked for his
identification. Pierce ultimately detained Cook as part of another ongoing
investigation. After handcuffing Cook, Pierce took possession of a Crown
Royal drawstring bag that Pierce had been carrying. Inside the bag was a
plastic baggie containing a white, rock-like substance. Pierce suspected that the
substance was cocaine.
[4] Unknown powdery substances carry an increased safety concern for officers
because of the possibility of fentanyl exposure. Transcript, Volume 2 at 68-69.
Detective Joshua Patterson of the Joint Drug Task Force was called to the
scene because he had additional training to address those safety concerns.
Pierce gave Patterson the baggie containing the white powder.
[5] Patterson took the suspected narcotics to his office where there was better
testing equipment than he could have used on scene. Patterson did an initial
test on the white powder that indicated that it contained cocaine. Patterson
then placed the baggie containing the suspected cocaine in a larger plastic
evidence bag and sealed it with brown tape which he initialed on each side. To
prevent tampering, Patterson overlapped the tape and the bag so that it was not
possible to open the bag without destroying the tape and his initials. Patterson
then dropped the sealed bag into a locked evidence box to which only the
evidence custodian had a key. As a matter of routine, after evidence was
dropped in the locked evidence box, the evidence custodian would retrieve it
and store it in an evidence vault until the evidence was sent to the Indiana State
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1712-CR-2907 | August 21, 2018 Page 3 of 8
Police Laboratory (“ISP Lab”) for testing. Either Julie Craddock or Katie Roy
was the evidence custodian at the time the evidence at issue was in the State’s
custody.
[6] On August 29, 2017, William Bowles, a forensic scientist with the ISP Lab,
received the suspected cocaine for testing. The evidence tape seal was still on
the evidence bag when Bowles received it. Bowles gained access to the
suspected cocaine via the bottom of the evidence bag. Bowles performed two
tests on the powder and determined that it was .17 grams of adulterated
cocaine. After performing the tests, Bowles resealed the bottom of the evidence
bag the cocaine had come in and initialed the heat seal.
[7] The State charged Cook with possession of cocaine, a Level 6 felony. In a
separate information, the State also alleged that Cook was an habitual offender.
Cook’s jury trial took place on October 16, 2017. Pierce confirmed that he
“was with the narcotics until it [sic] got to Detective Patterson” and that no one
had tampered with the evidence before Patterson took possession of it. Id. at
101-02. The cocaine was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 11 over Cook’s
objection that the State had not established an adequate chain of custody for its
admission. The trial court also admitted Exhibit 12, a laboratory report
confirming that the white powder was cocaine, over Cook’s objection that it
was based upon evidence for which the State had failed to establish an adequate
chain of custody. The jury found Cook guilty of Level 6 felony cocaine
possession and subsequently found that he was an habitual offender. Cook now
appeals his conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1712-CR-2907 | August 21, 2018 Page 4 of 8
Discussion and Decision
[8] Cook contends that the trial court erred when it admitted Exhibits 11 and 121
because the State failed to establish an adequate chain of custody. Specifically,
he argues that the State’s evidentiary foundation for the challenged exhibits was
lacking because it did not show how Pierce took possession of the cocaine, how
Patterson took possession of it, and how it was transported to Bowles for
testing. Appellant’s Brief at 9.
I. Standard of Review
[9] The trial court admitted Exhibits 11 and 12 over Cook’s objection that the
State’s chain of custody was incomplete. The admission or exclusion of
evidence following a chain of custody objection is within the sound discretion
of the trial court. Doty v. State, 730 N.E.2d 175, 178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
II. Chain of Custody
[10] To establish an adequate chain of custody, the State must give reasonable
assurances that the evidence remained in an undisturbed condition from the
time that it was taken from the defendant until it was analyzed to confirm its
composition. Smith v. State, 452 N.E.2d 160, 166 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983).
Although this burden is higher when fungible evidence is involved, the State is
not required to establish a perfect chain of custody, and once the State “strongly
1
Cook also stakes his claim of trial court error on the admission of Exhibits 10 and 13, but we do not
address those exhibits because he was not convicted of any offenses relating to them.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1712-CR-2907 | August 21, 2018 Page 5 of 8
suggests” the exact whereabouts of the evidence, any gaps go to the weight of
the evidence and not to its admissibility. Troxell v. State, 778 N.E.2d 811, 814
(Ind. 2002). In addition, there is a presumption of regularity in the handling of
evidence by law enforcement officials, and there is a presumption that officers
exercise due care in performing their duties. Id. To succeed in challenging the
State’s chain of custody, a defendant must do more than present evidence that
merely raises a possibility that the evidence may have been tampered with. Id.
[11] Cook argues that the State’s evidentiary foundation was inadequate because it
failed to show how the cocaine “got into the police car and to Officer Pierce,”
and failed to show how the cocaine came to be in Patterson’s possession.
Appellant’s Br. at 9. However, the evidence at trial showed that Pierce
removed the Crown Royal bag containing the baggie of cocaine from Cook
after detaining him. Pierce had the cocaine with him, and no one tampered
with it, until he gave it to Patterson for field testing. Patterson took the cocaine
to his office where he did an initial test on it before sealing the baggie
containing the cocaine in an evidence bag with brown tape which he initialed.
He dropped the bag into a sealed evidence locker where one of two possible
evidence custodians retrieved it and stored it until it was shipped to the ISP Lab
for testing. This seal was still on the evidence bag when Bowles received it at
the ISP Lab where he tested its contents and confirmed that it was, in fact,
cocaine. Thus, we disagree with Cook that the State failed to establish how
Pierce and Patterson came into possession of the cocaine. Indeed, this evidence
showed that the State was in continuous possession of the cocaine from the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1712-CR-2907 | August 21, 2018 Page 6 of 8
time that it left Cook until it was tested by Bowles and that it remained in an
undisturbed condition.
[12] Additionally, although the State’s trial preparation certainly could have been
more thorough, the State’s failure to specifically identify the person who
transferred the evidence from Patterson to Bowles was not fatal to its chain of
custody showing. The fact that the bag was sealed by Patterson and remained
sealed when Bowles received it was reasonable assurance that it had not been
tampered with during transit. See Smith, 452 N.E.2d at 166-67 (holding that it
was not necessary for the State to show every person who touched the
challenged evidence en route to testing, as its seal was intact upon arrival at the
laboratory). In any event, Cook does not direct our attention to any facts in the
record which remotely suggest that the cocaine was tampered with, lost, or
substituted at any time that it was in the State’s possession. Even if he had,
because the State “strongly suggested” the whereabouts of the cocaine at all
times, any gaps in its chain of custody would not have prevented its admission
at trial. Troxell, 778 N.E.2d at 814. Because the State established a proper
chain of custody for the cocaine, we hold that the trial court acted within its
discretion when it admitted Exhibits 11 and 12.
Conclusion
[13] Concluding that the State established that the cocaine passed in an undisturbed
condition throughout its chain of custody and that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion when it admitted evidence related to that cocaine, we affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1712-CR-2907 | August 21, 2018 Page 7 of 8
[14] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A05-1712-CR-2907 | August 21, 2018 Page 8 of 8