Opinion
23A-CR-2315
08-21-2024
Joel D. West, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Samuel J. Beasley Muncie, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Kathy J. Bradley Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Delaware Circuit Court The Honorable Linda Ralu Wolf, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 18C03-1902-F1-1
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Samuel J. Beasley
Muncie, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Kathy J. Bradley
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Judges Riley and Felix concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Baker, Senior Judge.
Statement of the Case
[¶1] Joel West appeals his conviction of dealing in a controlled substance resulting in death, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient. Concluding there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] In January 2019, Jake Adams, the decedent, was hanging out with Jeremy Boling, Breanna Herniak, and Riley Foster, and they were all intoxicated. At some point during the evening, Adams texted West about purchasing methamphetamine. West delivered methamphetamine to Adams some time after 2:00 a.m. Later that morning, Herniak and Boling found Adams unresponsive, and they called emergency personnel. Adams was subsequently pronounced dead.
[¶3] The State charged West with Level 1 felony dealing in a controlled substance resulting in death. A jury found West guilty, and the court sentenced him to thirty-five years. West now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[¶4] In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Sandleben v. State, 29 N.E.3d 126, 131 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015), trans. denied. Instead, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a reasonable factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not be disturbed. Labarr v. State, 36 N.E.3d 501, 502 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015). Moreover, when an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of his conviction after a jury verdict, "the appellate posture is markedly deferential to the outcome below ...." Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1181 (Ind. 2016).
[¶5] To obtain a conviction for dealing in a controlled substance resulting in death, the State must have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) West (2) knowingly (3) delivered (4) methamphetamine, a controlled substance, (5) which Adams used, injected, inhaled, absorbed, or ingested (6) resulting in Adams' death. See Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 141; see also Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.5(a) (2018).
[¶6] Here, West challenges the State's evidence only as to the element that his conduct "resulted in" Adams' death. Section 35-42-1-1.5(a) requires the State to prove a causal connection between the controlled substance delivered by the defendant and the victim's death. Yeary v. State, 186 N.E.3d 662, 673 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022). However, when multiple drugs are in the victim's system, as here, "such proof may consist of evidence that the drug distributed by the defendant was enough, by itself, to cause the death....[or] that the distributed drug, while not enough to cause the death by itself, foreseeably combined with other substances to cause the death." Id. at 674.
[¶7] At trial, the State's evidence included the testimony of Jolene Clouse, M.D., a board certified pathologist. She performed an autopsy on Adams, during which blood samples were taken and sent for testing. Dr. Clouse testified that several substances were found in Adams' blood, including methamphetamine, benzodiazepine, Xanax, some metabolites of marijuana, and alcohol. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 106. She also testified to the level of Xanax present in Adams' blood, characterizing it as within the therapeutic range. She further defined the term "therapeutic range" as "the average range that the [drug] level would be in if you were taking the drug by prescription[.]" Id. at 107. Dr. Clouse agreed that methamphetamine, at any level, can be deadly, and, when asked which of the substances in Adams' system, based on her training and experience, was the "primary actor" in his death, she responded: "The methamphetamine I would say would be the strongest component. Just because that can be fatal at any level, whereas the benzodiazepines or the Xanax and the alcohol were relatively lower levels." Id. at 108. Dr. Clouse further testified that she determined the cause of death to be "acute mixed drug intoxication," which she acknowledged was another way of saying "overdose caused by the interaction of multiple substances[.]" Id.
[¶8] The State also presented the testimony of Kevin Shanks, a forensic toxicologist. Shanks acknowledged that, by employing forensic toxicology, he could determine if a drug that was present in a person's body was capable of contributing to the person's death. Id. at 148. He also agreed that any level of methamphetamine in a person's blood can be fatal, id. at 154, and his opinion, based on his training and experience, coincided with that of Dr. Clouse in that Adams' toxicology results indicate an overdose caused by mixed drugs. Id. at 160. In addition, Shanks testified that he considered the methamphetamine to be the primary actor in the overdose and explained that
the other drugs - at the concentrations they are - with the specific effects that they have - really aren't at major concentrations -they aren't at that level that we would consider toxicity would be in play - even with drug interactions they're not at those levels that we would specifically say that there could be some interactions or toxicity from those drugs. With methamphetamine being present at that concentration there is no specific level of methamphetamine that is - when detected - that can essentially be associated with toxicity - that means essentially, that death - toxicity and deaths occur at low concentrations and high concentrations ....Id. at 161.
[¶9] West first suggests that "it is entirely possible" that Adams ingested the methamphetamine "approximately 90 minutes" and Xanax "approximately 2030 minutes" before he was found, which would weigh "in favor of concluding that the Xanax was the causal driver of Adams's overdose." Appellant's Br. p. 22.
[¶10] "Our supreme court has recognized that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a quantum of evidence that leaves the jury 'firmly convinced' and not one that overcomes every possible doubt or one that reaches a level of absolute certainty." Veach v. State, 204 N.E.3d 331, 337 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023), trans. denied. West's argument on this point ignores the State's burden of proof and the fact that it is not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. His line of reasoning is an invitation to reweigh the evidence that supports the jury's conclusion, and one we cannot accept.
[¶11] Next, although acknowledging Dr. Clouse's testimony that the methamphetamine was the primary actor in Adams' death, West asserts that there are "three possible causal explanations" for Adams' death: (1) methamphetamine, (2) methamphetamine acting in combination with other substances, or (3) a combination of Xanax and alcohol. Appellant's Br. pp. 2324. He states that the first two options support the verdict and further claims, "[t]he problem, though, is that there is no evidence in the record sufficient to allow a finder of fact to conclude that 3) was not a viable explanation here." Id. at 25.
[¶12] West argues that the State failed to disprove that Adams' death was caused by a combination of Xanax and alcohol. However, that is not what is required of the State. Rather, the State bears the burden of proving all elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Woods v. State, 939 N.E.2d 676, 678 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010), trans. denied. And evidence demonstrating proof beyond a reasonable doubt is evidence that leaves the jury firmly convinced; it is neither evidence of absolute certainty, Veach, 204 N.E.3d at 337, nor evidence that "'overcome[s] every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.'" Tongate v. State, 954 N.E.2d 494, 497 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011) (quoting Norwood v. State, 938 N.E.2d 1209, 1210 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010)), trans. denied. Moreover, on appeal, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Sandleben, 29 N.E.3d at 131.
[¶13] Here, the State was required to prove that the methamphetamine distributed to Adams by West was enough, by itself, to cause Adams' death or that the methamphetamine, while not enough to cause Adams' death by itself, foreseeably combined with other substances to cause his death. The evidence most favorable to the verdict includes the testimony of both Dr. Clouse and Shanks, and this evidence was sufficient evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the methamphetamine, by itself or in combination with the other drugs in Adams' system, caused Adams' death.
Conclusion
[¶14] We conclude the State's evidence was sufficient to support West's conviction of Level 1 felony dealing in a controlled substance resulting in death.
[¶15] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Felix, J., concur.