Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2122 | January 16, 2020 Page 1 of 6

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

Stanley L. Campbell

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Samantha M. Sumcad

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Nelson J. Waller,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

January 16, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2122

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Wendy W. Davis, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

02D04-1812-F5-396

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2122 | January 16, 2020 Page 2 of 6

[1] Nelson J. Waller appeals his convictions for two counts of dealing in cocaine or 

a narcotic drug as level 5 felonies. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Fort Wayne Police Detective Craig Wise began investigating narcotics in 1994 

and has been involved in thousands of such investigations, which include the 

use of confidential informants to conduct undercover controlled purchases. 

[3] On September 28, 2017, he made arrangements with a confidential informant 

(the “CI”) to conduct a controlled purchase at a gas station. Prior to the 

purchase, he searched the CI, fit him with a properly-working electronic 

transmitting device, provided him with $100, and drove him to the location. A 

white Malibu with a male black driver pulled into the gas station, the CI

approached the vehicle, returned, and re-entered Detective Wise’s vehicle. 

After about five minutes, Waller arrived in a second white Malibu, parked one 

pump over from Detective Wise’s vehicle, and entered the gas station building 

while wearing a blue hoodie and tan pants. The CI followed Waller inside. 

The pair “just stepped inside” the door, and the CI handed Waller the money. 

Transcript Volume I at 50. Within sight of Detective Wise, who was listening 

to the transmission, Waller shared with the CI that, when he tried to enter the 

first white Malibu, he had “freaked out” Waller’s supplier, who Waller was 

meeting “to get it from.” Id. Waller instructed the CI to wait in Waller’s 

vehicle while he went “to go get into the other white Malibu.” Id. A few 

minutes later, Waller entered his vehicle and explained to the CI that he had 

wanted “to leave when he was in the door” and “go somewhere to cut it up”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2122 | January 16, 2020 Page 3 of 6

because he did not “really like to do this in the car.” Id. at 51. After exiting

Waller’s vehicle, the CI returned to Detective Wise’s vehicle with a small

plastic package containing fentanyl and placed it in a cup so that the detective 

did not have to touch it. 

[4] On October 10, 2017, Detective Wise met the CI, searched him to ensure he did 

not have any weapons, guns, money, or drugs, wired him with a properlyworking electronic transmitting device, and provided him with $100 of 

prerecorded buy money. He drove the CI to a specified location. When they 

arrived, Waller stood beside a white Malibu. The CI met Waller in front of 

Detective Wise’s vehicle, Waller handed him a package containing fentanyl, 

and he gave Waller the money. The CI returned the package to Detective

Wise, and they drove away. 

[5] The State charged Waller with two counts of dealing in cocaine or a narcotic 

drug as level 5 felonies. At the jury trial, Detective Wise testified to the use of 

confidential informants, explained controlled purchases, detailed the prepurchase procedure of searching confidential informants for money and drugs

and wiring them with electronic transmitting devices, and described the postpurchase process of receiving the drugs. He testified about the first controlled 

purchase and indicated that he knew about Waller’s comment to the CI after 

receiving the money because he was “listening on the seven radio, listening to 

the conversation.” Id. at 50. He indicated that the CI did not have any 

narcotics when he exited the vehicle, had narcotics when he re-entered it, and 

was in the line of sight while the electronic device was transmitting. He 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2122 | January 16, 2020 Page 4 of 6

testified that he was listening to the transmission “while everything was going 

on.” Id. at 52. When asked how close the second white Malibu was to his 

vehicle, he stated “[f]rom me to you,” he indicated that he could clearly identify 

the male driving that vehicle, and he pointed to Waller when asked to point to 

the individual who sold drugs to the CI that day. Id. at 56. The court admitted 

an audio recording from the first controlled purchase as State’s Exhibit 1 and 

published it to the jury. It admitted the fentanyl purchased that day as State’s 

Exhibit 2, and the parties stipulated that it weighed .27 grams. 

[6] Detective Wise testified about the second controlled purchase, indicated that it 

occurred in the open and that he could see Waller through the front windshield, 

and when asked about the distance from where Waller stood to Detective 

Wise’s vehicle, stated “[a]bout where you are.” Id. at 60. He answered 

affirmatively when asked if he searched the CI and knew that the CI did not 

have any contraband on him and when asked if all the CI had on him was the 

$100 of prerecorded buy money. He testified that, after the controlled buy, the 

CI had a baggie of suspected fentanyl and did not have the money. The court 

admitted an audio recording from the second purchase as State’s Exhibit 3 and 

published it to the jury. It admitted the fentanyl purchased that day as State’s 

Exhibit 4, and the parties stipulated that it weighed .38 grams. 

[7] The jury found Waller guilty as charged, and the court sentenced him to five 

years, with two years suspended, for each count to be served concurrently. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2122 | January 16, 2020 Page 5 of 6

Discussion

[8] The issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Waller’s convictions. 

When reviewing claims of insufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the 

evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816, 

817 (Ind. 1995), reh’g denied. We look to the evidence and the reasonable 

inferences therefrom that support the verdict. Id. The conviction will be 

affirmed if there exists evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury 

could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[9] Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1 provides that a person who “knowingly or intentionally . 

. . delivers . . . cocaine or a narcotic drug, pure or adulterated, classified in 

schedule I or II” commits dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug, a level 5 felony.

[10] Waller maintains that, absent the testimony of the CI that he delivered the 

drugs which were turned over to Detective Wise, there was not sufficient 

evidence to sustain his convictions. He contends that Detective Wise did not 

actually see any delivery take place despite his testimony that the October 10, 

2017 transaction occurred in front of his car as he was watching. 

[11] The State responds that the evidence of the properly conducted controlled buys 

was sufficient to prove Waller’s crimes without needing testimony from the 

confidential informant and that, in looking at the totality of the evidence,

sufficient probative evidence existed by which a reasonable fact-finder could 

have found Waller guilty. It argues that, because the CI was under constant 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2122 | January 16, 2020 Page 6 of 6

and complete surveillance, Detective Wise had first-hand knowledge of what he 

heard and observed while the transactions took place. 

[12] The record reveals that Detective Wise searched the CI before each controlled 

purchase to ensure that he did not have any contraband or narcotics. After 

meeting with Waller and providing him with prerecorded purchase money, the 

CI returned to Detective Wise with fentanyl on both occasions. As the 

controlled purchases were being conducted, the CI wore a properly-working 

electronic transmitting device and remained within Detective Wise’s sight. 

Detective Wise was able to see or hear him at all times. Based upon our review 

of the testimony and evidence as set out above and in the record, we conclude

that the State presented evidence of a probative nature from which a trier of fact 

could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Waller dealt in cocaine or narcotic 

drugs.

[13] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Waller’s convictions.

[14] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.