MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Nov 14 2017, 10:03 am
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
Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Glenn Dillard, November 14, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1706-CR-1189
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Matthew A.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Tandy, Judge Pro Tem
Trial Court Cause No.
49G24-1609-CM-38068
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1706-CR-1189 | November 14, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Glenn Dillard appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor dealing in
paraphernalia. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction. Finding sufficient evidence, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On September 23, 2016, a narcotics unit with the Indianapolis Metropolitan
Police Department was conducting an undercover operation on the east side of
Indianapolis near 10th and Rural Streets. That night, Officer Kent Meier was
“slow rolling” eastbound on 10th Street when Dillard motioned for him to turn
around. Tr. Vol. II p. 10. After Officer Meier turned around, Dillard
approached his car and asked him what he needed. Officer Meier responded
“slow motion” (heroin) or “smoke” (marijuana). Id. at 11. Dillard said that he
could take care of Officer Meier and then jumped into the passenger seat of the
officer’s car. As Officer Meier continued westbound on 10th Street, Dillard told
him that he did not actually have those drugs with him but that he would “take
[Officer Meier] down an alley to a residence for $20 of heroin or weed.” Id. at
12. Scared of being ambushed, Officer Meier continued driving. As Officer
Meier was about to let Dillard out of his car, Dillard mentioned having some
“hard” (crack cocaine) with him. Id. Officer Meier asked him how much, and
Dillard said “a nickel,” which is about $5 worth of crack cocaine. Id. Dillard
also said he had a pipe with him and that Officer Meier could buy both for $20.
Id. at 12-13. Dillard then showed Officer Meier the pipe and said that the crack
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1706-CR-1189 | November 14, 2017 Page 2 of 5
cocaine was inside. According to Officer Meier, the pipe was a “crack pipe,”
which is used to smoke crack cocaine. Id. at 13. Dillard, however, put his
thumb or finger over the top of the pipe, concealing the inside of the pipe.
Officer Meier then gave Dillard $20 in prerecorded buy money “for the pipe
and what was believed to be crack cocaine inside the pipe,” pulled over, and let
Dillard out of his car. Id. at 12. After pulling away, Officer Meier radioed
other officers, who then arrested Dillard. Upon being searched, the $20 in
prerecorded buy money was found on Dillard’s person. The pipe was tested,
and it was found to contain cocaine residue, but no measurable amount of
cocaine.
[3] Thereafter, the State charged Dillard with Class A misdemeanor dealing in
paraphernalia. Following a bench trial, Dillard was found guilty.
[4] Dillard now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Dillard contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction,
appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences supporting the judgment. Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 133 (Ind.
2016). It is the fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness
credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to
support a conviction. Id. It is not necessary that the evidence “overcome every
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1706-CR-1189 | November 14, 2017 Page 3 of 5
reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Id. (quotation omitted). The evidence is
sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the
judgment. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007).
[6] In order to convict Dillard of Class A misdemeanor dealing in paraphernalia as
charged here, the State had to prove that he knowingly or intentionally
delivered an object—a pipe—that was intended, designed, or marketed to be
used primarily for ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human
body a controlled substance, specifically, cocaine. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-8.5;
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 18. Dillard claims that the evidence is insufficient to
support his conviction for dealing in paraphernalia because “the transaction
was for cocaine and it was simply packaged in the pipe . . . the same as if it
were in a baggie or a cigarette.” Appellant’s Br. p. 8; see also id. (“If the cocaine
was contained in a small piece of paper that the officer received, and the officer
then unwrapped and snorted off the paper, would that interaction constitute
dealing in paraphernalia? Certainly not . . . .”). Dillard’s argument, however,
ignores the evidence in the record. That is, although Officer Meier initially
sought to buy heroin or marijuana from Dillard, that plan changed when
Dillard told him that he did not have either one. As Officer Meier was getting
ready to let Dillard out of his car, Dillard offered to sell Officer Meier $5 worth
of crack cocaine and his crack pipe for $20. Contrary to Dillard’s argument on
appeal, the sale of the crack pipe was not “incidental” to their transaction. Id.
We therefore affirm Dillard’s conviction for Class A misdemeanor dealing in
paraphernalia.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1706-CR-1189 | November 14, 2017 Page 4 of 5
[7] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1706-CR-1189 | November 14, 2017 Page 5 of 5