Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 35A02-1512-CR-2245 | August 23, 2016 Page 1 of 10

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as 

precedent or cited before any court except for the 

purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Jeremy K. Nix

Matheny Hahn Denman & Nix, LLP

Huntington, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Brian K. Bell,

Appellant-Defendant,

v. 

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff. 

August 23, 2016

Court of Appeals Cause No.

35A02-1512-CR-2245

Appeal from the Huntington 

Superior Court

The Honorable Jeffrey R. 

Heffelfinger, Judge

Cause No. 35D01-1506-F5-136

Riley, Judge. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 35A02-1512-CR-2245 | August 23, 2016 Page 2 of 10

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Brian Bell (Bell), appeals his conviction and sentence for 

dealing in a narcotic drug, a Level 5 felony, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1. 

[2] We affirm. 

ISSUES 

[3] Bell raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as follows: 

(1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence; 

and

(2) Whether Bell’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense 

and his character.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] In order to avoid prosecution for a felony drug related charge, Mitchel Buzzard 

(Buzzard) entered into an agreement to work as a confidential police informant 

for the Huntington Police Department on March 5, 2015. Buzzard’s contract 

mandated him to choose eight people and to at least make two controlled buys

from each individual by July 1, 2015. 

[5] On May 11, 2015, Buzzard arranged a controlled buy from Matthew Roberts 

(Roberts), who was an acquaintance. Buzzard agreed, via phone call, to buy 

five morphine pills for $140. Buzzard contacted Detective Shane Jones 

(Detective Jones) of the Huntington Police Department about the potential buy. 

Detective Jones and other detectives met with Buzzard to prepare him for the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 35A02-1512-CR-2245 | August 23, 2016 Page 3 of 10

transaction. The officers searched Buzzard and provided him with buy money

and also gave him audio and video recording equipment. 

[6] Bell, who was friends with Roberts, drove Roberts to meet Buzzard at a 

restaurant parking lot. Buzzard knew Bell from elementary school, and both 

had lived in the same neighborhood. Upon seeing Bell’s vehicle, Buzzard 

entered the vehicle and sat in the rear seat. Bell then drove to a house on 

Poplar Street, in Huntington County, Indiana, and parked outside. At that 

point, Buzzard gave the $140 buy money to Roberts, but instead of keeping it, 

Roberts offered the buy money to Bell. The police, who were maintaining 

surveillance of the transaction, saw Bell exit his vehicle and go inside an 

apartment on Poplar Street belonging to a man from whom the police had 

made previous controlled drug buys. After about four minutes, Bell returned to 

his vehicle and gave Buzzard five morphine pills wrapped in cellophane. Three 

of the morphine pills were 60 milligrams, and two were 30 milligrams. Bell 

then drove back to the restaurant parking lot where he had met with Buzzard. 

Buzzard exited Bell’s vehicle and walked to the location where the police were 

parked and handed over the morphine pills and recording equipment. Buzzard 

refused to make a second controlled buy from Bell since he did not want to get 

Bell in trouble. 

[7] On June 15, 2015, the State filed an Information, charging Bell with dealing in 

a narcotic drug, a Level 5 felony. On October 16-17, 2015, the trial court 

conducted a jury trial. At the close of the hearing, the jury found Bell guilty as 

charged. On December 1, 2015, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 35A02-1512-CR-2245 | August 23, 2016 Page 4 of 10

subsequently sentenced Bell to an executed sentence of six years at the

Department of Correction. 

[8] Bell now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Best Evidence 

[9] Bell first claims that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the State 

to question Buzzard about a certain term heard on the audio recording. 

Specifically, Bell challenges Buzzard’s testimony under the best evidence 

principles. We note that the best evidence rule simply refers to the principle 

that when trying to prove the content of a document, recording, or photograph, 

an original is the best evidence of that content. Ind. Evidence Rule 1002. 

“However, when a witness has personal knowledge of the facts contained in the 

best evidence, the best evidence rule will not bar the witnesses’ [sic] testimony 

since the witness is not being asked to reveal the contents of the best evidence, 

but rather is being asked to recall his own independent observations.” Lopez v. 

State, 527 N.E.2d 1119, 1125 (Ind. 1988). 

[10] Further, we observe that the decision to admit or exclude evidence is within the 

trial court’s sound discretion and is “afforded a great deal of deference on 

appeal.” Hauk v. State, 729 N.E.2d 994, 1001 (Ind. 2000). We will not reverse 

that decision absent a manifest abuse of discretion resulting in the denial of a 

fair trial. Edwards v. State, 724 N.E.2d 616, 620 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 35A02-1512-CR-2245 | August 23, 2016 Page 5 of 10

[11] As noted above, Buzzard was equipped with audio and video recording 

equipment to monitor the controlled buy. At trial, the State sought to 

introduced the audio recording as Exhibit 3. As the State published that audio 

recording to the jury members, Buzzard was on the witness stand and the State 

asked questions to provide context of the voices, background noises, and events

occurring. Buzzard identified his voice, Roberts’ voice, and Bell’s voice. Also 

without objection, he identified Roberts as the speaker who asked him for the 

buy money. Without objection, Buzzard testified that he gave Roberts the buy 

money when Roberts asked for it, and that Bell returned to the car and gave 

him the morphine pills before they drove away. At some point the State asked

THE STATE: . . . [W]ho is that talking right there?

[BUZZARD]: [Roberts]

THE STATE: He referred to Perks. What are Perks?

[BUZZARD]: Oxycodone[]s. 

THE STATE: What are Opanas? 

[BUZZARD]: Um, I believe they are Hydromorphone pills. 

THE STATE: Okay. Also pain med pills? 

[BUZZARD]: Correct. 

Recording stopped at 4:13:37
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 35A02-1512-CR-2245 | August 23, 2016 Page 6 of 10

THE STATE: There was . . .

[BELL’S] COUNSEL: Your Honor, I’m going to have to object at 

this point. What I’m hearing is [the State] testifying . . . .[T]his 

information should come from his own testimony and not from [the 

State]. . . . I didn’t hear ‘perks’. . . 

THE COURT: I don’t think [] she’s referring to what the tape says 

and asks him to identify it or to explain it. That’s not improper. 

[BELL’S] COUNSEL: I’m saying I didn’t hear that word.

THE COURT: Well if the jury didn’t hear then . . . (sic). 

[BELL’S] COUNSEL: What gives her the right to ... (sic). 

THE COURT: Then they are going to have the same interpretation 

you are. But [] the jury will be able to listen to the tape again if they 

wish and as many times as they wish. 

[BELL’S] COUNSEL: Right, right. And the best evidence is the 

witness. 

THE STATE: Well, the best evidence is the recording. 

****

THE COURT: I’m going to overrule the objection. You can note 

your objection. 

(Transcript pp. 194-95). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 35A02-1512-CR-2245 | August 23, 2016 Page 7 of 10

[12] From the above, it appears that Bell did not reference the best evidence rule as 

his reason for objecting to Buzzard’s testimony. Rather, the substance of Bell’s 

objection appears to have been focused on the form of questioning and his belief 

that the State was asking leading questions. Bell does not develop an argument 

on appeal that the form of the questioning was leading and because Bell cannot 

object on one basis at trial and raise another basis on appeal, he has waived 

appellate review of any claim that the challenged questioning violated the best 

evidence rule. See Phillips v. State, 22 N.E.3d 749, 757 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). 

Indeed, the rule of waiver protects the integrity of the trial court in that the trial 

court cannot be found to have erred as to an argument that it never had an 

opportunity to consider. T.S. v. Logansport State Hosp., 959 N.E.2d 855, 857 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Therefore, Bell’s claim is waived.

[13] Waiver notwithstanding, we conclude that there was no error. To the extent 

that the contents of the recordings were in dispute, the recordings were 

available for review by the jury during deliberations. Moreover, the disputed 

testimony primarily relates to Buzzard clarifying the use of a slang term for a 

certain drug during his conversation with Roberts. It does not relate to the 

specific drug that Bell sold to Buzzard, which was morphine. It also did not 

relate directly to Bell’s role in the crime. In light of the overwhelming evidence 

of Bell’s guilt presented at trial, it is unlikely that the jury’s decision was 

influenced by Buzzard clarifying the meaning of “perks”, the street name of 

Oxycodone. See Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 683 n. 7 (Ind. 2013) (“Where 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 35A02-1512-CR-2245 | August 23, 2016 Page 8 of 10

evidence of guilt is overwhelming any error in the admission of evidence is not 

fundamental.”). Accordingly, we find no error here. 

II. Inappropriate Sentence1

[14] Lastly, Bell contends that his six-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides 

that we “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration 

of the trial court’s decision, [we find] that the sentence is inappropriate in light 

of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” The burden is on 

the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is 

inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). 

“Ultimately the length of the aggregate sentence and how it is to be served are 

the issues that matter.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). 

Whether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on our 

sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage 

1 Pursuant to Indiana Administrative Rule 9(G)(2)(b) and Indiana Code section 35-38-1-13, the presentence 

investigation (PSI) report must be excluded from public access. However, in this case, the information 

contained in the PSI report “is essential to the resolution” of Bell’s claim on appeal. Ind. Admin. Rule 

9(G)(7)(a)(ii)(c). Accordingly, we have included confidential information in this decision only to the extent 

necessary to resolve the appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 35A02-1512-CR-2245 | August 23, 2016 Page 9 of 10

done to others, and a myriad of other considerations that come to light in a 

given case. Id. 

[15] The advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an 

appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016, 

1019 (Ind. 2012). For his Level 5 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, Bell faced a 

sentencing range of one to six years, with the advisory sentence being three

years. Here, the trial court imposed the maximum sentence. 

[16] As to the nature of the offense, Bell argues that he was not the target of the 

controlled buy, and he happened to drive his vehicle in which the target of the 

drug buy was present. Bell’s culpability is not diminished based on the fact that 

he was not the actual target. The record shows that Bell received $140 from 

Buzzard and, in return, he gave Buzzard five morphine pills. 

[17] As to Bell’s character, the record shows that he has an extensive criminal 

history. Bell’s criminal record dates back to 2002, and it includes twelve 

convictions, including domestic battery, resisting law enforcement, operating a 

vehicle while intoxicated with a prior conviction, driving while suspended, 

public intoxication, and possession of alcohol by a minor. Furthermore, this is 

not Bell’s first drug offense, Bell has been convicted of dealing in marijuana. In 

addition, Bell’s probation has been revoked three times. 

[18] Despite his numerous prior contacts with the criminal justice system, Bell has 

not reformed his criminal behavior. Here, we cannot say that the six-year 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 35A02-1512-CR-2245 | August 23, 2016 Page 10 of 10

sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender.

CONCLUSION

[19] Based on the foregoing, we find no error in the admission of Buzzard’s 

testimony; and Bell’s sentence is appropriate in light of the nature of the offense 

and his character. 

[20] Affirmed.

[21] Kirsch, J. and Pyle, J. concur