Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2089 | April 8, 2020 Page 1 of 11

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

Kurt A. Young

Nashville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Myriam Serrano

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Brian Eugene Moore,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff. 

April 8, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2089

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Jennifer Prinz 

Harrison, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G20-1804-F2-11795

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2089 | April 8, 2020 Page 2 of 11

[1] Brian Eugene Moore appeals his convictions for dealing in methamphetamine

as a level 2 felony, unlawful possession of a syringe and maintaining a common 

nuisance as a level 6 felonies, possession of marijuana as a class B 

misdemeanor, and possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor. We 

affirm and remand. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 9, 2018, police arrived at a residence which was leased by Moore and 

his fiancée Monica Vance to execute an arrest warrant for Tylan Abrego who 

was wearing a GPS monitor and had been staying at the residence for about 

one week. Police executed the arrest warrant and placed Abrego in handcuffs. 

Vance was not at home at the time of the search. As they placed Abrego in 

handcuffs, officers heard shuffling on the other side of the living room wall, 

performed a protective sweep for officer safety, found Moore sitting on the bed 

in the front bedroom, and noticed a semi-automatic handgun on a nightstand 

next to him and a bag of marijuana on a dresser. They obtained a search 

warrant and then searched the residence. 

[3] Officers found a baggie of marijuana; a baggie of crystal methamphetamine; a 

meth pipe, a hundred-gram balance weight, and wallet with Moore’s 

identification in the nightstand; a meth pipe and a syringe on the bed; a revolver 

on the floor near the nightstand; a sawed-off shotgun on a clothing shelf; a 

baggie of crystal methamphetamine in a pink bag; a large shard of crystal 

methamphetamine in a jewelry container; a large tied-off bag containing crystal 

methamphetamine inside a black CD case on a bookshelf; a post-it pad with
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2089 | April 8, 2020 Page 3 of 11

dollar values next to names consistent with a ledger; a Winchester rifle; and a 

tray with a burnt spoon, used syringe, and marijuana under clothes on a

dresser. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Clayton Portell spoke with 

Moore, went “over everything,” and “told him exactly what [officers] had 

found.” Transcript Volume II at 122. Moore initially denied that everything in 

the room belonged to him and said that he shared the room with Vance, officers 

indicated they would wait for her to return home, and at that point Moore said 

“everything in there is mine.” Id. He told Officer Portell the guns and all the 

drugs in the room belonged to him and he was not a drug dealer but just a user. 

[4] The State charged Moore with: Count I, dealing in methamphetamine as a level 

2 felony; Count II, possession of methamphetamine as a level 3 felony; Count 

III, unlawful possession of a syringe as a level 6 felony; Count IV, maintaining 

a common nuisance as a level 6 felony; Count V, possession of marijuana as a 

class B misdemeanor; and Count VI, possession of paraphernalia as a class C 

misdemeanor. Prior to trial, Moore filed a Notice of 404(b) Evidence stating he

proposed to introduce at trial “the drug history of Tylan Abrego, which 

includes five arrests for drug charges in the past two years.” Appellant’s 

Appendix Volume II at 85. The State filed a motion in limine requesting that 

Moore be instructed not to refer in any way to Abrego’s criminal history, prior 

arrests, or drug use or to any speculative and/or hearsay testimony by Vance 

about the methamphetamine recovered from the front bedroom including 

testimony that it was placed there by Abrego. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2089 | April 8, 2020 Page 4 of 11

[5] On the day of trial, July 15, 2019, the court heard argument and found that 

Abrego’s history of alleged drug possession, use, and convictions did not fall 

under the identity exception or any exception under Ind. Evidence Rule 404(b), 

was more prejudicial than probative, was a confusion of the issues, and was not 

relevant to Moore’s intent as to the items found in his room. Moore’s counsel

then moved for a continuance and stated he received a message from Vance on

Saturday morning and she was in the hospital. He argued Vance was an 

important defense witness, he had taken a taped statement from her several

months earlier, and she would testify that: Abrego asked if she could store her 

valuables in the bedroom Vance shared with Moore; she was aware of a rifle 

Abrego had placed in the bedroom and cash Abrego kept in a drawer in her 

dresser; Moore did not have a black CD case, CDs, or a CD player; Abrego was 

trying to enter treatment but in the meantime was using speed,

methamphetamine, and pills on a regular basis; there were times she tried to 

wake Abrego and it was difficult to wake her; Abrego carried a notebook with a

list of names and numbers next to each name in her purse; and Abrego would 

front drugs to people. Moore made an offer of proof and introduced Vance’s 

statement during which Vance indicated she was not present when the officers 

searched the residence, Abrego had been staying at the house a few days and 

trying to become admitted to a treatment facility, Abrego had placed a long 

gun behind her nightstand and kept money in a sock or zip purse in her dresser 

drawer, she had the notion Abrego received the money selling drugs but was 

not sure, she saw her sell drugs in her living room two times, she was not aware 

of any drugs hidden in her room or house, she was not aware of Abrego storing 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2089 | April 8, 2020 Page 5 of 11

anything in her bedroom other than the gun and some money, she had no 

knowledge of a pink purse or a jewelry container, she was unaware there was a 

CD case on her bookshelf, she had two skinnier cases than the one found on the 

bookshelf which contained DVDs and were kept just inside the door, and she 

did not know if Moore owned a black CD case. The State objected to a 

continuance and argued Vance’s statement revealed she had no knowledge of 

the recovered methamphetamine and “wasn’t even there,” any testimony about 

Abrego’s drug use was inadmissible, and the remaining testimony was 

speculation. Transcript Volume II at 13. The court stated it had reviewed the

transcript of Vance’s statement, any statements regarding Abrego’s drug use 

was not admissible, Vance indicated she was unaware of the CD case, her 

testimony was speculative at best, and the majority of her testimony was 

inadmissible. The court denied Moore’s motion for a continuance and granted 

the State’s motion in limine. 

[6] During his jury trial, Moore testified that, on the day of the search, Vance was 

not home and was helping her sister move and that, besides himself and 

Abrego, there were three other people in the house including a friend who had 

been staying on the couch, a man he did not know who was in the other 

bedroom with Abrego, and a woman who was one of Abrego’s friends. He 

testified that the rifle belonged to Abrego and the other guns belonged to him. 

He testified the meth pipes were his, Vance did not know about them, “I had 

snuck around and I had done the stuff a few times with Ms. Abrego and didn’t 

tell my old lady,” “[y]ou know, she’d seen me do it twice,” and “that’s the big 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2089 | April 8, 2020 Page 6 of 11

crime out of all of this. I did that behind her back.” Id. at 180. He testified he 

had no idea where the black CD case came from, there was not a CD player in 

the house, and he had DVDs but no CDs. He testified that, when he told 

officers everything in the bedroom belonged to him, he was referring to the 

marijuana and the little sack of meth and that he did not know there was 

methamphetamine in the CD case. When asked if he had been letting Abrego 

stay at his house, Moore replied affirmatively and indicated they had said she 

could stay for a week. 

[7] The jury found Moore guilty on all counts. The court stated: “I do accept the 

jury’s verdict as to Count 1 through Count 6, and I do enter judgment of 

conviction for all three.” Id. at 216. The court verbally sentenced Moore to 

concurrent terms of seventeen and one-half years with eleven and one-half years 

suspended on Count I, 730 days each on Counts III and IV, 180 days on Count 

V, and sixty days on Count VI.

1

 It ordered the executed sentence be served at 

Marion County Community Corrections. The court also stated: “I show that 

Count 2 would merge into Count 1, so there will be no sentence imposed as to 

1 With respect to Count I, the court verbally stated it sentenced Moore to seventeen and one-half years with 

six years executed on a direct placement to Marion County Community Corrections Home Detention and 

eleven and one-half years suspended. The chronological case summary (“CCS”) reflects Moore received a 

sentence on Count I of 6205 days, or seventeen years, with 4197 days, or eleven and one-half years, 

suspended. The court’s abstract of judgment indicates Moore received a sentence on Count I of 6388 days, 

or seventeen and one-half years, with 2190 days, or six years, suspended. The appellant’s appendix contains 

two sentencing orders: one of the orders is stamped as filed and states Moore received a sentence on Count I 

of 6388 days, or seventeen and one-half years, with 2190 days, or six years, suspended; the other order states 

Moore received a sentence on Count I of 6205 days, or seventeen years, with 4197 days, or eleven and onehalf years, suspended. Also, while the court verbally sentenced Moore to sixty days on Count VI, the 

abstract of judgment, both sentencing orders, and CCS show a sentence of 180 days. On remand, we instruct 

the trial court to issue amended entries reflecting Moore’s actual sentences. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2089 | April 8, 2020 Page 7 of 11

that.” Id. at 227. The abstract of judgment, with respect to Count II, states 

“Conviction Merged.” Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 24. 

Discussion 

I.

[8] Moore first asserts19 that the trial court should have allowed him to present 

evidence of Abrego’s drug history and prior arrests on drug charges to support 

his position that the methamphetamine belonged to her. The State responds 

that Abrego’s criminal history was not relevant and was inadmissible under 

Ind. Evidence Rules 404(b) and 403 and that any error in excluding the 

evidence is harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented. 

[9] The trial court has broad discretion to rule on the admissibility of evidence. 

Bradley v. State, 54 N.E.3d 996, 999 (Ind. 2016). A trial court’s ruling on the 

admission of evidence is generally accorded a great deal of deference on appeal. 

Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459, 466 (Ind. 2015), reh’g denied. We do not reweigh 

the evidence; rather, we consider only evidence that is either favorable to the 

ruling or unrefuted and favorable to the defendant. Beasley v. State, 46 N.E.3d 

1232, 1235 (Ind. 2016). Generally, errors in the admission of evidence are to be 

disregarded unless they affect the substantial rights of a party, and in 

determining the effect of the evidentiary ruling on a defendant’s substantial 

rights, we look to the probable effect on the fact finder. Turner v. State, 953 

N.E.2d 1039, 1059 (Ind. 2011). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2089 | April 8, 2020 Page 8 of 11

[10] Ind. Evidence Rule 401 provides evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to 

make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and the 

fact is of consequence in determining the action. Ind. Evidence Rule 403 

provides that the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is 

substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, 

misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. 

[11] Ind. Evidence Rule 404(b)(1) provides that evidence of a crime, wrong, or other 

act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a 

particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. Ind. 

Evidence Rule 404(b)(2) provides that “[t]his evidence may be admissible for 

another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, 

knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” The prohibition 

in Evidence Rule 404(b) “applies to persons other than the defendant.” Britt v. 

State, 937 N.E.2d 914, 917 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Wells v. State, 904 

N.E.2d 265, 270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Garland v. State, 788 N.E.2d 425, 

429-430 (Ind. 2003)), trans. denied). 

[12] The trial court was able to consider the evidence Moore wished to present

regarding Abrego’s prior drug use and arrests. The evidence Moore desired to 

present was inadmissible under Evidence Rule 404(b) to prove Abrego’s 

character and that she acted in accordance with the character. Further, he does 

not show the evidence was admissible for another purpose under Evidence Rule 

404(b)(2). We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in not admitting 

evidence of Abrego’s drug history and prior arrests. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2089 | April 8, 2020 Page 9 of 11

II.

[13] Moore next claims the trial court should have granted his motion for a 

continuance. A trial may be continued at the trial court’s discretion and shall 

be continued upon a showing of good cause established by affidavit. Blackburn 

v. State, 130 N.E.3d 1207, 1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (citing Ind. Trial Rule 

53.5).

2

 Ind. Code § 35-36-7-13 provides for a continuance upon a proper 

showing of an absence of evidence or the illness or absence of the defendant or 

a witness. Maxey v. State, 730 N.E.2d 158, 160 (Ind. 2000). Although absence 

of a material witness is a statutory ground for a continuance, if the motion for 

continuance does not meet the statutory criteria, then the court may use its 

discretion to grant or deny the motion. Blackburn, 130 N.E.3d at 1210. 

Decisions on motions made at the court’s discretion are given substantial 

deference. Id. There is always a strong presumption the trial court properly 

exercised its discretion. Id. We will not disturb the trial court’s decision absent 

a clear demonstration of abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice. Id. 

2 Ind. Trial Rule 53.5 states in part: “Upon motion, trial may be postponed or continued in the discretion of 

the court, and shall be allowed upon a showing of good cause established by affidavit or other evidence.”

3 Ind. Code § 35-36-7-1 provides: 

(a) A motion by a defendant to postpone a trial because of the absence of evidence may be made 

only on affidavit showing:

(1) that the evidence is material;

(2) that due diligence has been used to obtain the evidence; and

(3) the location of the evidence.

* * * * *

(d) A defendant must file an affidavit for a continuance not later than five (5) days before the 

date set for trial. If a defendant fails to file an affidavit by this time, then he must establish, to 

the satisfaction of the court, that he is not at fault for failing to file the affidavit at an earlier date.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2089 | April 8, 2020 Page 10 of 11

[14] Moore argues that, although he did not file an affidavit, it was not possible to 

produce an affidavit no later than five days before trial. He argues Vance would 

have testified that Abrego carried a notebook showing how much she was 

owed, would front drugs to people, used and sold drugs, and stored valuables in 

the bedroom and that he did not have a CD player or own CDs. Moore 

testified that Vance was not present at the time of the search, she did not know 

about the meth pipes, and he had “snuck around and . . . done the stuff a few 

times with Ms. Abrego and didn’t tell” Vance. Transcript Volume II at 180. 

The trial court reviewed the transcript of Vance’s statement in which she 

indicated she had the notion Abrego received the money selling drugs and saw 

her sell drugs two times, was not aware of any drugs hidden in her room, was 

unaware there was a CD case on her bookshelf, and did not know if Moore 

owned a black CD case. Vance’s statements related to Abrego’s drug use were

inadmissible under Evidence Rule 404(b). The other statements by Vance were 

speculative and largely cumulative of other evidence including Moore’s 

testimony. Based upon on the record, we cannot say the trial court erred or

abused its discretion in denying Moore’s request for a continuance or that he 

was prejudiced by the court’s decision. 

III.

[15] Moore next claims the trial court erred in entering judgment of conviction 

under Count II. The State responds that vacation of the conviction would be 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2089 | April 8, 2020 Page 11 of 11

appropriate. In light of the State’s agreement, we remand with instructions to 

vacate judgment of conviction under Count II.

4

 

[16] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Moore’s convictions and remand to vacate

the judgment of conviction under Count II and, as previously, noted, to issue 

amended entries reflecting Moore’s actual sentences. 

[17] Affirmed and remanded. 

Najam, J., and Kirsch, J., concur. 

4 This will not impact Moore’s sentence as the trial court did not impose any sentence on Count II.