MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 24 2018, 7:03 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
Fred W. Grady Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Valparaiso, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Matthew B. MacKenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Lee M. Gleaves II, October 24, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
17A-CR-3034
v. Appeal from the
Howard Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff. William C. Menges, Jr. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
34D01-1608-F2-780
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 1 of 20
[1] Lee M. Gleaves II (“Gleaves”) was convicted following a jury trial of
possession of cocaine1 as a Level 3 felony and was sentenced to 5,840 days. On
appeal, he raises the following consolidated and restated issues:
I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when, over
Gleaves’s objection, it admitted evidence that Gleaves claims was
more prejudicial than probative, including: (1) testimony that the
police drug task force was looking for Gleaves; (2) potentially
incriminating evidence related to Gleaves’s arrest; and (3) expert
testimony about the price and use of cocaine; and
II. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to convict
Gleaves of possession of cocaine.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On August 4, 2016, Officer Chad VanCamp (“Officer VanCamp”), a canine
handler for the Kokomo Police Department Drug Task Force (“Task Force”),
was informed by a fellow Task Force member, Detective Derek Root
(“Detective Root”), that “Gleaves was supposed to be in town running
suspected narcotics,” likely a “large quantity” of cocaine. Suppression Hr’g Tr. at
6.2 Detective Root advised Officer VanCamp that Gleaves was in a white van
1
See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(d)(1).
2
For ease of reference, we refer to the transcript of the hearing on the motion to suppress—Supplemental
Volume 2 Transcript, Hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress—as Suppression Hr’g Tr. and refer to the
transcript of the jury trial as Tr. Vol. II.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 2 of 20
traveling east on Jefferson Street.” Id. at 7. Officer VanCamp’s initial inquiry
indicated that Gleaves’s driver’s license was suspended with infraction. Id.
[4] While stationed at the intersection of Jefferson and Witherspoon in Howard
County, Officer VanCamp saw Gleaves drive by in the white van and began
driving behind him. Activating his radar, Officer VanCamp noted that Gleaves
was traveling thirty-seven miles per-hour in a zone posted for thirty miles per
hour. Tr. Vol. II at 56. Officer VanCamp initiated a traffic stop and activated
his body-camera recorder. Officer VanCamp approached the van, notified
Gleaves of the traffic infraction, and asked for his driver’s license, vehicle
registration, and insurance card. Officer VanCamp stated his belief that
Gleaves’s license was suspended, which Gleaves denied. Returning to his
vehicle, Officer VanCamp radioed dispatch for a “driver’s license inquiry.” Id.
at 57. While awaiting the “license return,” Officer VanCamp retrieved his
police dog, Xena, who sniffed the exterior of the van and alerted to an area
between the van’s rear back passenger door and the front passenger door.
Officer VanCamp returned Xena to the cruiser and read Gleaves his Miranda
rights.
[5] Kokomo Police Officer Guy Trobaugh (“Officer Trobaugh”), who had arrived
at the scene, searched Gleaves for illegal substances but found nothing.
Suppression Hr’g Tr. at 10; Tr. Vol. II at 59. Meanwhile, Officer VanCamp
searched the interior of the van and noted that the van’s plastic parts, behind
which drugs could be concealed, were very loose and that a “masking agent”
had been sprayed in the van, which could have obscured the smell of narcotics.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 3 of 20
Suppression Hr’g Tr. at 11. Ten minutes into the search, Officer VanCamp had
found nothing illegal. Heavy traffic conditions and the August heat made it
unsafe for Xena to search the van at the scene. Therefore, the officers
determined that the van should be towed to the basement of the Kokomo Police
Department. While waiting for the tow truck, Officer VanCamp issued Gleaves
a traffic citation for speeding and driving while suspended and released him at
the scene. The traffic stop was captured on Officer VanCamp’s body camera
(“Video One”).
[6] Officer VanCamp followed the van from the location of the traffic stop to the
basement of the police station, where the van was locked and secured. Officer
VanCamp obtained a search warrant, and again with the aid of Xena, he and
Detective Root performed a full search of the van’s interior. Xena alerted to a
missing cup holder, inside which Officer VanCamp found several plastic bags
containing approximately fifty-seven grams of crack cocaine, or about two
ounces.3 Based on that evidence, Officer VanCamp and officers from Howard
and Cass Counties went to Gleaves’s residence in Logansport. Gleaves was on
in-home detention at that time. Within seconds of entering the home, Officer
VanCamp told Gleaves that he was there to arrest him, and Gleaves said, “I
figured as much” (“Gleaves’s Admission”). Id. at 15; Tr. Vol. II at 77.
Immediately thereafter, Officer VanCamp informed Gleaves of the charges
3
We note that Officer VanCamp testified at trial that he found two bags, one of which weighed fifty-seven
grams and the other of which weighed ten grams. Tr. Vol. II at 74. The State, however, charged Gleaves
with possession of just fifty-seven grams.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 4 of 20
against him. The scene of Gleaves’s arrest was filmed by Officer VanCamp on
a second video (“Video Two”).4 Tr. Vol. II at 78.
[7] On August 5, 2016, Gleaves was charged with one count of dealing in cocaine
as a Level 2 felony and one count of possession of cocaine as a Level 3 felony.
On October 24, 2016, Gleaves filed a motion to suppress, and later an
amendment, alleging that the seizure of the van and extended stop were
violations of the Indiana and United States Constitutions. Gleaves asked the
trial court to suppress “[a]ny evidence seized or statements made which flow
from the illegal police action.” Appellant’s App. at 24. The trial court denied
Gleaves’s motion after a hearing.
[8] Thereafter, Gleaves filed a motion in limine to: (1) exclude, as prejudicial, any
portion of Video One or Video Two that suggested that Gleaves was on in-
home detention or had a prior criminal history; and (2) exclude, as irrelevant,
all of Video Two, which contained potentially incriminating evidence and
admissions Gleaves made at the time of his arrest. Tr. Vol. II at 7, 8-9. During
a hearing on the motion in limine, the State agreed to exclude evidence of
Gleaves’s in-home detention and prior convictions but argued that Gleaves’s
4
Officer VanCamp’s body-camera recorded the traffic stop and arrest as two separate files, Video One and
Video Two respectively. Officer VanCamp’s recording of the traffic stop was admitted into evidence as
State’s Exhibit 2 and the recording of the arrest was admitted as State’s Exhibit 7. In the record before us, the
DVD admitted as State’s Exhibit 2 has both Video One and Video Two. State’s Exhibit 7, however, is just a
photocopy of the DVD. Notwithstanding the absence of a DVD for State’s Exhibit 7, this court was able to
view the relevant portions of the arrest on Video Two of State’s Exhibit 2. Therefore, our reference to Video
Two is a reference to the recording of the arrest found in State’s Exhibit 2.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 5 of 20
admission of guilt in Video Two was relevant and should be admitted. Id. at 9.
Defense counsel countered that Video Two depicted officers from Cass and
Howard Counties at the scene of the arrest with no explanation as to the reason
for their presence. Id. Defense counsel also argued that the admission of
evidence showing Gleaves’s in-home detention ankle bracelet would be “highly
prejudicial.” Id. at 10. The trial court agreed that evidence pertaining to prior
bad acts, including the fact that Gleaves was on in-home detention, would be
excluded. However, finding the evidence more probative than prejudicial, the
trial court allowed the jury to watch the first two minutes and fifteen seconds of
Video Two, which showed Gleaves’s Admission.5 Prior to October 27, 2017,
when the trial reconvened, Gleaves filed a second motion to suppress
“statements [that] would be reasonably interpreted to be incriminating.” Id. at
36. The trial court heard argument before denying Gleaves’s motion.
[9] During trial, Officer VanCamp testified about the circumstances surrounding
the police stop. When asked why he was looking for Gleaves, Officer
VanCamp said, “The detective of the Drug Task Force . . . .” Id. at 50. Before
Officer VanCamp could continue, defense counsel objected and, outside the
presence of the jury, argued that Officer VanCamp’s testimony—that the Task
Force was looking for Gleaves—introduced the notion “that there was some
sort of prior bad act or prior indication out there that [Gleaves] was committing
5
Video Two was stopped after Gleaves’s Admission. The jury did not see the removal of the in-home
detention bracelet.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 6 of 20
some criminal offense or had committed some criminal offense and that’s why
they were watching out for [him].” Id. at 51. Moving for a mistrial, defense
counsel argued that Officer VanCamp’s answer had already tainted the jury and
had been improperly admitted because it was in violation of the motion in
limine’s exclusion of references to prior bad acts. Id. In the alternative, defense
counsel asked that no reference or allegation be made regarding the fact that the
police had received “hearsay information from some uncorroborated third
source about [Gleaves] having illegal narcotics that day and/or guns” or as to
why police stopped Gleaves. Id. at 51-52.
[10] The State responded that it was not intending to introduce hearsay evidence;
instead, the State wanted “to show what Officer VanCamp was doing on that
day and why he was doing it.” Id. at 52. The trial court denied defense
counsel’s motion for a mistrial and prohibited the State from suggesting it knew
that Gleaves had drugs in his car that day but allowed Officer VanCamp to
testify “that he was asked by the Drug Task Force to keep an eye out for
[Gleaves].” Id. at 54. In other words, evidence that the Task Force was looking
for Gleaves was admissible, but evidence as to why police were looking for him
was not admissible. Id. Back in the presence of the jury, Officer VanCamp
testified, without objection, that he was looking for Gleaves because “Detective
Root requested that I be in the area.” Id. at 55.
[11] Officer VanCamp testified that when he stopped Gleaves for speeding, Gleaves
was the only one in the car. While awaiting information on the status of
Gleaves’s driving privileges, Officer VanCamp and Xena walked around the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 7 of 20
van, and Xena’s alert resulted in a preliminary search. Gleaves was issued a
ticket, and the van was towed to the police station. A later search of the van
uncovered fifty-seven grams of crack cocaine. Testifying as an expert, Officer
VanCamp explained that the typical amount of cocaine a user would have on
his person, if searched during a traffic stop, was “[t]ypically a half gram or
less.” Id. at 81. Officer VanCamp described going to Logansport to arrest
Gleaves, and upon telling him that he was being arrested, Gleaves said he
figured as much. Id. at 77. Soon thereafter, Gleaves spontaneously offered to
work with the Task Force in an effort to avoid prison.
[12] Regarding the amount of cocaine found in the van, Detective Root testified
that, as an undercover officer, he would typically buy a half gram to one gram
of cocaine and occasionally an “8 ball” on the local market for between $100 to
$300. Id. at 103. Detective Root testified that, during his time on the Task
Force, he had less than five opportunities to buy as much as one ounce of
cocaine and that it cost anywhere from $1,500 to $2,000. At the conclusion of
the jury trial, Gleaves was acquitted of dealing in cocaine but found guilty of
possession of cocaine and sentenced to 5,840 days. Gleaves now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Admission of Evidence
[13] Gleaves first contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted
certain evidence. The admission or exclusion of evidence falls within the sound
discretion of the trial court, and appellate courts review the admission of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 8 of 20
evidence only for an abuse of discretion. Abney v. State, 79 N.E.3d 942, 953
(Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “An abuse of discretion occurs ‘where the decision is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.’” Id. (quoting
Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind. 2001)). In reviewing the admissibility
of evidence, we consider only the evidence favorable to the trial court’s ruling
and any unrefuted evidence in the appellant’s favor. Kirk v. State, 974 N.E.2d
1059, 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied.
[14] Indiana Evidence Rules 401 through 403 govern relevancy of evidence. Fuentes
v. State, 10 N.E.3d 68, 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. “Relevant
evidence is admissible; irrelevant evidence is not.” Id. (citing Ind. Evidence
Rule 402). “Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make any ‘fact that is
of consequence to the determination’ of the action more or less probable.” Id.
at 72-73 (citing Evid. R. 401). Relevant evidence can be excluded if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. Id.
at 73 (citing Evid. R. 403).
[15] “Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) provides that evidence of other crimes, wrongs,
or acts of a defendant is not admissible to prove the character of the defendant
in order to show action in conformity therewith.” Baker v. State, 997 N.E.2d 67,
70 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “The well-established rationale behind Evidence Rule
404(b) is that the jury is precluded from making the forbidden inference that the
defendant had a criminal propensity and therefore engaged in the charged
conduct.” Id. Such evidence, however, may “be admissible for another
purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 9 of 20
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or lack of accident.” Evid. R. 404(b).
“In assessing the admissibility of Evidence Rule 404(b) evidence, the trial court
must “(1) determine whether the evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is
relevant to a matter at issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the
charged act; and (2) balance the probative value of the evidence against its
prejudicial effect.” Baker, 997 N.E.2d at 70. A trial court may exclude relevant
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or
more of the following: 1) unfair prejudice; 2) confusing the issues; 3)
misleading the jury; 4) undue delay; or 5) needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence. Evid. R. 403.
A. Evidence of why Officer VanCamp was Looking for Gleaves
[16] Gleaves first argues that the trial court abused its discretion when, over his
objection, it admitted Officer VanCamp’s statements that he was looking for
Gleaves at the directive of Detective Root of the Task Force. Appellant’s Br. at
18. Gleaves maintains that this testimony suggested that he had prior
interactions with the Task Force, which allowed the jury to infer that he had
committed prior bad acts. A review of the record does not support Gleaves’s
contention. Officer VanCamp testified that, on the day of the traffic stop, he
knew Gleaves and the vehicle he drove. Tr. Vol. II at 50. Officer VanCamp did
not say how or why he had such knowledge. Id. The following exchange
occurred between the State and Officer VanCamp:
Q. And on that date of August 4, 2016, were you looking for Mr.
Gleaves?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 10 of 20
A. Yes I was.
Q. And why were you looking for him?
A. The detective of the Drug Task Force—
Id. Defense counsel then objected.
[17] Outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel asserted that it was improper
for Officer VanCamp to testify that Gleaves was known to the Task Force. Id.
Defense counsel argued that the introduction of such evidence violated
Evidence Rule 404(b) and the order on his motion in limine because it allowed
the jury to make the inference that Gleaves had previously committed or was
about to commit a criminal offense and, for that reason, was known to the Task
Force. Id. at 51. The State countered that information that Gleaves had a
“suspended driver’s license” was reason enough to look for Gleaves. Id. at 52.
After a hearing on the matter, the trial court ruled that Officer VanCamp could
testify that he was asked to watch for Gleaves, and evidence could be admitted
that the Task Force was looking for Gleaves. Id. at 54. Nevertheless, evidence
would not be admitted as to “why [the police] were looking for [Gleaves].” Id.
at 54. When the jury returned to the courtroom, Officer VanCamp, responding
to the question of why he was in the area, said, “Detective Root requested that I
be in the area.” Id. at 55. Defense counsel did not object. Id.
[18] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed Officer VanCamp’s
testimony. Defense counsel was able to object before Officer VanCamp fully
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 11 of 20
answered. Additionally, Officer VanCamp’s testimony contained no evidence
of prior bad acts. Hearing the above exchange, the jury could have reasonably
concluded that Detective Root wanted Officer VanCamp to look for Gleaves for
any number of innocent reasons—as a Task Force confidential informant, a
witness to a crime, or a victim of a crime. None of those reasons paint Gleaves
in a negative light. Here, no reference was made to any past or present
investigation of any sort, and the only evidence of bad conduct was that
Gleaves was speeding and driving while suspended at the time Officer
VanCamp spotted him. Furthermore, after being told he could respond to the
question, Officer VanCamp said, “Detective Root requested that I be in the
area.” Tr. Vol. II at 50, 55. Defense counsel did not object to this response. Id.
at 55. As such, the record before us does not support Gleaves’s contention that
the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted Officer VanCamp’s
statements.
B. Incriminating Evidence Relating to Gleaves’s Arrest
[19] Gleaves next contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted
evidence and statements from the scene of his arrest that were more prejudicial
than probative. Gleaves cites to three sources of prejudicial evidence that were
erroneously admitted: 1) the portion of Video Two showing officers from both
Cass and Howard Counties at the scene of the arrest; 2) the portion of Video
Two showing Gleaves’s Admission; and (3) Gleaves’s statement that he was
willing to work with law enforcement in an effort to avoid prison. Appellant’s
Br. at 20-23.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 12 of 20
[20] Gleaves appears to intertwine his first and second arguments, both of which
allege that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the jury to watch
the first two minutes and fifteen seconds of Video Two. Regarding his first
claim, Gleaves argues that he was prejudiced when the jury saw officers “from
both police departments, present at the time of the arrest, without a disclosure
to the jury of the Cass County Officer’s primary role at the scene for removal of
[Gleaves]’s in-home-detention ankle bracelet.” Appellant’s Br. at 20. Second, he
argues that, regarding his statement “I figured as much,” Tr. Vol. II at 77, “the
State prejudicially painted this statement to the jury,” by suggesting that
Gleaves expected to be arrested for possession of cocaine. Appellant’s Br. at 21.
Gleaves argues that the State’s characterization of his statement undermined his
theory that “the knowledge of his in-home detention violation would more than
reasonably explain the statement he made when the police showed up at his
home in Logansport and told him he was being placed under arrest.” Id. at 21.
Gleaves’s arguments suggest that he was prejudiced because the jury did not
know that he was on in-home detention. At trial, Gleaves did not offer
evidence that he was on in-home detention. In fact, prior to trial, he filed a
motion in limine to exclude any evidence relating to prior bad acts, including a
reference to his in-home detention. Accordingly, Gleaves cannot now
complain that he was prejudiced by the fact that, without notice of his in-home
detention, the jury was unable to properly evaluate why multiple officers were
on the scene or what offense Gleaves believed warranted his arrest.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 13 of 20
[21] We are likewise not convinced that Video Two should have been excluded on
the basis that its contents were more prejudicial than probative under Evidence
Rule 403. The jury viewed just the first two minutes and fifteen seconds of
Video Two. The first minute and fifteen seconds showed Officer VanCamp
driving to Gleaves’s Logansport residence, walking with a second officer to
Gleaves’s door, and knocking. Officer VanCamp knocked for about twenty-five
seconds. One minute and fifty seconds into the recording, a man, not in
uniform, met Officer VanCamp at the door and introduced himself.6 About
two minutes and five seconds into the recording, Officer VanCamp entered the
residence and said, “How are you doing Lee. Here to arrest you.” Video Two
at 00:02:05. Gleaves immediately said, “I figured as much.” Id. at 00:02:06.
Two minutes and eight seconds into the recording, Officer VanCamp told
Gleaves he is being arrested for dealing in cocaine and possession of cocaine.
In the remaining seven seconds viewed by the jury, Gleaves asked Officer
VanCamp if he can wait a few minutes, explaining that his wife was not home,
and that he was watching his children. During the first two minutes and fifteen
seconds, there is no reference to other officers or police departments. Gleaves’s
description of numerous officers from two police departments being present at
his arrest is not reflected in the first two minutes and fifteen seconds of Video
Two. We find no prejudice.
6
From the recording, the man’s name and reason for being at the scene, if provided, cannot be deciphered.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 14 of 20
[22] We also disagree with Gleaves’s second argument that his statement to Officer
VanCamp was more prejudicial than probative. Gleaves’s statement was
certainly relevant to the matter of whether he was guilty of the crimes charged.
During the hearing on the motion in limine to exclude evidence of Gleaves’s
admission, the trial court said:
I think it would be up to the jury to determine whether or not the
statements Mr. Gleaves . . . makes . . . are admissions or not, but
I think they . . . have the right to hear that. And to the extent
that it is an admission it is . . . highly prejudicial as is every bit of
culpatory evidence that the State introduces in . . . the course of
trial. It’s prejudicial to the defendant but it’s admissible . . . .
Tr. Vol. II at 11. We agree with the trial court. Our court has recognized:
All evidence that is relevant to a criminal prosecution is
inherently prejudicial; thus, proper inquiry under Evidence Rule
403 boils down to a balance of the probative value of the
proffered evidence against the likely unfair prejudicial impact of
that evidence. When determining the likely unfair prejudicial
impact, courts will look for the dangers that the jury will
substantially overestimate the value of the evidence or that the
evidence will arouse or inflame the passions or sympathies of the
jury.
Fuentes, 10 N.E.3d at 73 (internal citations omitted). Gleaves argues that his
statement had unfair prejudicial impact because it allowed the jury to assume
he was admitting to cocaine possession instead of a violation of his in-home
detention. It was Gleaves, however, who invited the error by requesting the
suppression of evidence that Gleaves was on in-home detention—the very
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 15 of 20
evidence that could have allowed the jury to make such an inference. “Under
the doctrine of invited error, a party may not take advantage of an error that he
commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his own neglect or
misconduct.” Hill v. State, 51 N.E.3d 446, 451 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citing
Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind.2005). Furthermore, Gleaves’s
Admission was more probative than prejudicial, and the trial court did not
abuse its discretion when it admitted that statement.
[23] Third, Gleaves contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it
allowed Officer VanCamp to testify that Gleaves had requested to work with
law enforcement in an effort to avoid prison. Tr. Vol. II at 78. Again, we find
no abuse. Like Gleaves’s Admission, Gleaves’s offer to work with the Task
Force was prejudicial. Nevertheless, it was also highly relevant to Gleaves’s
guilt or innocence. See Fuentes, 10 N.E.3d at 73 (evidence relevant to a criminal
prosecution is inherently prejudicial). Gleaves was not coerced into making
this statement; instead, he spontaneously offered to work with law enforcement
in an effort to avoid going to prison. While inherently prejudicial, like all
evidence that is relevant in a criminal prosecution, the trial court’s
determination, that on balance it was more probative than prejudicial, was not
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. The
trial court did not abuse its discretion.
C. Testimony about Amount and Value of Cocaine
[24] During Gleaves’s trial, Officer VanCamp and Detective Root testified about the
quantity of cocaine found, and their experiences of buying cocaine as part of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 16 of 20
Task Force. Officer VanCamp testified that a typical cocaine user has a half
gram or less in his or her possession. Tr. Vol. II at 81. Detective Root testified
that, as part of the Task Force, he would typically buy either “a half gram at a
time or a full gram at a time,” but sometimes as much as “an 8 ball, which is
about three to three and a half grams.” Id. at 102-03. Detective Root also
testified that he had had less than five opportunities to locally buy one ounce of
cocaine, which cost about $1,500 to $2,000 per ounce. Id. at 103. Gleaves had
fifty-seven grams of cocaine in his possession and, in the opinion of Officer
VanCamp and Detective Root, that amount was far more than would be used
for personal consumption and was indicative of dealing in cocaine.
Notwithstanding Gleaves’s claim to the contrary, testimony of this nature was
relevant because Gleaves had been charged not only with possession, but also
with dealing in cocaine.
[25] Gleaves contends that: (1) the officers’ testimony “had substantial influence in
tainting the jury” by portraying Gleaves as a “drug dealer with a large amount
of cocaine”; (2) the State relied heavily on the amount of cocaine in closing
argument; and (3) Gleaves was prejudiced by this testimony. Appellant’s Br. at
24, 25. Here, the officers testified about the amount of cocaine that a user
would possess in an effort to prove that, since Gleaves possessed fifty-seven
grams when a typical user possessed less than one gram, Gleaves must have
been dealing in cocaine. Gleaves asserts that the jury was unduly influenced by
the officers’ testimony. We disagree. Where, like here, Gleaves was found not
guilty of dealing in cocaine, Gleaves has shown no prejudice.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 17 of 20
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[26] Gleaves contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his
conviction. The deferential standard of review for sufficiency claims is well
settled. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we
do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. Wilson v.
State, 39 N.E.3d 705, 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. We consider only
the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences that
can be drawn from that evidence. Id. We will not disturb the jury's verdict if
there is substantial evidence of probative value to support it. Fuentes, 10 N.E.3d
at 75. We will affirm unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of
the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Lock v. State, 971 N.E.2d 71, 74
(Ind. 2012). As the reviewing court, we respect “the jury’s exclusive province
to weigh conflicting evidence.” McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind.
2005). It is not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable
hypothesis of innocence. Wilson, 39 N.E.3d at 716. The evidence is sufficient if
an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict, and a
conviction may be based upon circumstantial evidence alone. Id.
[27] To convict Gleaves of possession of cocaine as a Level 3 felony, the State had
to prove that he: 1) knowingly or intentionally; 2) possessed cocaine; 3)
weighing at least twenty-eight grams. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(d)(1). Here,
Gleaves was the only occupant of the van he was driving at the time he was
stopped by police. Tr. Vol. II at 82. The van was towed from the scene of the
traffic stop, and Officer VanCamp followed the van from the scene to the police
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 18 of 20
department basement, where it was locked and secured. A later search of the
van uncovered fifty-seven grams of cocaine concealed within several bags that
had been stuffed inside a missing cup holder. Id. at 73-74. Upon arriving at
Gleaves’s residence, Officer VanCamp told Gleaves he was there to arrest him.
Unprompted, Gleaves said, “I figured as much.” Id. at 77. While still at the
scene of the arrest, Gleaves offered to work with the Task Force in an effort to
avoid prison. Here, Gleaves’s exclusive control over the van in which fifty-
seven grams of cocaine were discovered, and his later tacit admissions to
Officer VanCamp that he knew they were going to arrest him, and he wanted to
cooperate to avoid prison, constitute sufficient evidence to uphold his
conviction for Level 3 felony possession of cocaine. See Wilson v. State, 966
N.E.2d 1259, 1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (evidence was sufficient to prove felony
possession of narcotic drug located inside vehicle where defendant had
dominion and control over vehicle and was the only occupant at the time of his
arrest), trans. denied; Whitney v. State, 726 N.E.2d 823, 826 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)
(defendant’s sole possession of vehicle in which cocaine was discovered was
sufficient to establish constructive possession of cocaine); Woods v. State, 640
N.E.2d 1089, 1091 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (evidence was sufficient to prove
possession of cocaine when cocaine was found under driver’s seat of vehicle
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 19 of 20
defendant was operating).7 The State presented sufficient evidence to support
Gleaves’s conviction.
[28] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.
7
Referring to the elements necessary to convict him of possession of cocaine, Gleaves argues that, “Without
relying on [Gleaves’s] prejudicial statements throughout the trial, the State failed to prove each of these
elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” Appellant’s Br. at 25. Gleaves suggests that the State should have run
tests for DNA and fingerprints and should have looked at his cell phone records. Id. at 26. Finding as we do
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted Gleaves’s statements, we need not address
Gleaves’s question of whether there was sufficient evidence to support Gleaves’s conviction in the absence of
Gleaves’s statements.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3034 | October 24, 2018 Page 20 of 20