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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

DEBORAH MARKISOHN GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

RICHARD C. WEBSTER

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

CRAIG HATCHETT, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 49A02-1402-CR-88

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Steven Eichholtz, Judge

The Honorable Peggy Hart, Master Commissioner

Cause No. 49G20-1302-FB-12394

September 30, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
2

BARNES, Judge

Case Summary

Craig Hatchett appeals his conviction for Class B felony dealing in cocaine. We 

affirm.

Issue

The sole issue before us is whether there is sufficient evidence to support Hatchett’s 

conviction.

Facts

On February 21, 2013, officers of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department 

made plans to attempt undercover buys of drugs from suspected dealers. Two undercover 

officers in an unmarked car saw Hatchett standing in a small group of people in a 

neighborhood where there had been complaints of drug dealing. Hatchett made eye contact 

with one of the officers, Hatchett and the officer nodded to each other, and Hatchett waved at 

the officers, motioning for them to come to him. The officers drove over to Hatchett, who 

then approached the passenger side of the car. Hatchett asked the officer in the passenger 

seat what he was looking for, and the officer responded “forty.” Tr. p. 104. This is a 

common drug dealing term that refers to forty dollars, which generally translates into two 

small rocks of crack cocaine. Hatchett then gave the officer two baggies containing small 

rocks of what appeared to be crack cocaine in exchange for two twenty-dollar bills, the serial 

numbers of which had been pre-recorded. Later testing confirmed that the rocks were crack 

cocaine. After the undercover officers left the area, uniformed officers arrived and arrested 
3

Hatchett. Officers found the two twenty-dollar bills with the pre-recorded serial numbers in 

Hatchett’s pocket.

The State charged Hatchett with one count of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and 

one count of Class D felony possession of cocaine. A jury found Hatchett guilty of both 

counts. The trial court only entered judgment of conviction on the dealing count. Hatchett 

now appeals.

Analysis

When we review a claim of insufficient evidence to support a conviction, we must 

consider only the evidence most favorable to the conviction and any reasonable inferences 

that may be drawn from that evidence. Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind. 2012). We 

will affirm if a reasonable fact finder could determine from the evidence that the defendant 

was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the 

credibility of witnesses. Id. A conviction may be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone.

Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855, 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.

Hatchett’s sole argument is that there is insufficient evidence he knew that the 

substance he sold the undercover officer was crack cocaine. In Indiana, knowledge of the 

nature of the substance sold is an element of dealing in a controlled substance. Bemis v. 

State, 652 N.E.2d 89, 92 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). Such knowledge may be inferred by a trier of 

fact based upon an examination of the surrounding circumstances. McClendon v. State, 671 

N.E.2d 486, 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). 
4

There is no evidence in this case to suggest that Hatchett was accidentally in 

possession of crack cocaine. Rather, he engaged in conduct entirely consistent with drug 

dealing when he sold the substance to the undercover officer in exchange for forty dollars, 

evidencing familiarity with the street slang connected with the sale of crack cocaine. 

Although Hatchett did not admit to selling crack cocaine or explicitly offer to sell the officer 

cocaine, there clearly is sufficient circumstantial evidence that he knew he was selling 

cocaine.

Conclusion

There is sufficient evidence to sustain Hatchett’s conviction. We affirm.

Affirmed.

BRADFORD, J., and BROWN, J., concur.