Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-927 | September 16, 2020 Page 1 of 5

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

Steven R. Knecht

Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C.

Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Tina L. Mann

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Yapree White, 

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff.

September 16, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-927

Appeal from the Tippecanoe

Circuit Court

The Honorable Sean M. Persin,

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

79C01-1905-F3-20

Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-927 | September 16, 2020 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary

[1] Yapree White sold heroin to an undercover officer on four different occasions. 

He subsequently pled guilty to three counts of Level 5 felony dealing in a 

narcotic drug and was found guilty of one count of Level 3 felony dealing in a 

narcotic drug. On appeal, White contends that the evidence is insufficient to 

sustain his Level 3 felony conviction. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] White sold heroin to Lafayette Police Sergeant Brad Curwick on February 5, 

February 18, and March 6, 2019. On April 3, 2019, Sergeant Curwick again 

arranged to purchase heroin from White. In order to complete the transaction, 

Sergeant Curwick and White agreed to meet at the Tippecanoe Mall. After 

arriving at the mall, Sergeant Curwick called White, who directed him to park 

between two red cars outside of the Old Navy store. Sergeant Curwick located 

White in a white Ford Explorer that was parked a few spaces from where White 

had instructed him to park.

[3] As Sergeant Curwick approached the Ford Explorer, he observed “one or two 

people sitting in the back” of the vehicle. Tr. Vol. II p. 26. Sergeant Curwick 

“walked along the passenger side and noted that the passenger window was 

down and was able to look inside the vehicle and see [White] sitting in the back 

seat behind the driver’s seat.” Tr. Vol. II p. 27. Sergeant Curwick “got in the 

front passenger seat,” turned toward White, and handed White $210.00. Tr. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-927 | September 16, 2020 Page 3 of 5

Vol. II p. 27. As Sergeant Curwick turned to hand White the money, he 

observed “a small child, approximately ... two to three years old, female, sitting 

in a car seat” next to White. Tr. Vol. II p. 28. The child “was awake and alert” 

at the time. Tr. Vol. II p. 28. After White took the money, he “handed 

[Sergeant Curwick] four knotted plastic corner bags,” each containing heroin. 

Tr. Vol. II p. 27.

[4] On May 13, 2019, the State charged White with three counts of Level 5 felony 

dealing in a narcotic drug, three counts of Level 6 felony possession of a 

narcotic drug, one count of Level 3 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, and one 

count of Level 5 felony possession of a narcotic drug. Prior to trial, White pled 

guilty to the three Level 5 felony dealing charges and the State dismissed the 

three Level 6 felony possession charges. The matter proceeded to trial on the 

remaining charges.

[5] Following a bench trial, the trial court found White guilty of the remaining 

charges. The trial court entered a judgment of conviction on the three Level 5 

felony-dealing charges and the Level 3 felony dealing charge, but not on the 

Level 5 felony possession charge “due to double jeopardy concerns.” 

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 56. On March 13, 2020, the trial court imposed an 

aggregate sentence of ten years of incarceration, with one year suspended to 

probation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-927 | September 16, 2020 Page 4 of 5

Discussion and Decision

[6] White contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to sustain his 

conviction for Level 3 felony dealing in a narcotic drug.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a 

conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative 

evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. 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. To preserve this structure, 

when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, 

they must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. 

Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence 

overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The 

evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn 

from it to support the verdict.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007) (citations, emphasis, and 

quotations omitted). 

[7] In order to convict White of Level 3 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, the State 

was required to prove that White knowingly or intentionally delivered heroin 

and “(A) the amount of heroin involved, aggregated over a period of not more 

than ninety (90) days, is at least three (3) grams but less than seven (7) grams; 

and (B) an enhancing circumstance applies.” Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(a) & (d)(4).

Indiana Code section 35-48-1-16.5(6) provides that an enhancing circumstances 

includes committing the offense “in the physical presence of a child less than 

eighteen (18) years of age, knowing that the child was present and might be able 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-927 | September 16, 2020 Page 5 of 5

to see or hear the offense.” White does not challenge the sufficiency of the 

evidence to prove that he delivered heroin to Sergeant Curwick. He argues only 

that the State failed to prove that the crime occurred in the physical presence of 

a child.

[8] During trial, Sergeant Curwick testified that as he turned around to exchange 

the money and drugs with White, he observed “a small child, approximately ... 

two to three years old, female, sitting in a car seat” next to White. Tr. Vol. II p. 

28. The child “was awake and alert.” Tr. Vol. II p. 28. Sergeant Curwick’s 

testimony is sufficient to prove that White committed the crime of dealing in 

the physical presence of a child. See Brasher v. State, 746 N.E.2d 71, 72 (Ind. 

2001) (“It is well established that the testimony of a single eye witness is 

sufficient to sustain a conviction.”). White’s challenge to the sufficiency of the 

evidence amounts to nothing more than a request to assess Sergeant Curwick’s 

credibility and reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Stewart v. State, 

768 N.E.2d 433, 435 (Ind. 2002) (“We do not reweigh the evidence or assess 

the credibility of witnesses.”).

[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Najam, J., and Mathias, J., concur.