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

Evan K. Hammond

Grant County Public Defender

Marion, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Karl Scharnberg

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William McCormick,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 23, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

27A02-1601-CR-88

Appeal from the Grant Superior 

Court

The Honorable Dana J. 

Kenworthy, Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

27D02-1303-FB-30 and 27D02-

1204-FD-90

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1601-CR-88 | August 23, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary

[1] William McCormick appeals his conviction for class B felony dealing in a 

schedule II controlled substance. The sole issue presented for our review is 

whether the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. 

Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 28, 2012, Marion Police Department Detectives Jason Thomas 

and Mark Stefanatos were working as part of the JEAN Team Drug Task 

Force. A confidential informant (‘CI”) contacted supervising Detective 

Stefanatos and told him that McCormick would sell the CI pills. The CI was 

given purchase money and paired with Detective Thomas, an undercover 

officer, to make a controlled buy. Detective Thomas fitted himself with 

electronic surveillance equipment before accompanying the CI to the address of 

the apartment where McCormick lived. Detective Stefanatos positioned 

himself at a gas station across the street from the building so that he could 

observe.

[3] When Detective Thomas and the CI arrived at the address, they encountered 

McCormick out in front of the building. McCormick stated that “he knew” 

Detective Thomas. Tr. at 14. Detective Thomas told McCormick that he did 

not think that they knew each other and asked McCormick what his name was. 

McCormick replied, “Bill McCormick,” and showed Detective Thomas an I.D. 

card with his name and picture. Id. The CI and McCormick entered

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1601-CR-88 | August 23, 2016 Page 2 of 6
McCormick’s apartment while Detective Thomas stayed on the sidewalk. 

Although the door of the apartment remained open, Detective Thomas “could 

not see them the whole time, but [he] did see Mr. McCormick handing 

something to the informant.” Id. at 15. 

[4] Detective Thomas and the CI subsequently left and met Detective Stefanatos at 

a prearranged meeting place. The CI gave Detective Stefanatos pills that he 

had purchased from McCormick. He gave Detective Stefanatos five oblong 

yellow pills with a “V” inscribed on one side and “36/01” on the other. Id. at 

45-46; State’s Ex. 3. Detective Stefanatos then asked Detective Thomas if he 

would feel comfortable making a second purchase from McCormick. Detective 

Thomas agreed to go back with the CI to make another purchase from 

McCormick. Detective Stefanatos gave Detective Thomas twenty dollars to 

make the second purchase.

[5] When Detective Thomas and the CI arrived back at McCormick’s building, 

they again met McCormick outside on the sidewalk. The CI asked McCormick 

if he had any more of the pills that he had sold to them earlier. McCormick 

initially stated that he did not but then immediately stated that he did, as 

though he had been joking with the CI about not having any. Both Detective 

Thomas and the CI followed McCormick into his apartment. Detective 

Thomas informed McCormick that he had twenty dollars, and McCormick told 

Detective Thomas that he could buy four ten-milligram yellow “Norcos.” Tr.

at 19. Detective Thomas gave McCormick a $20 bill, and McCormick handed 

him four oblong shaped yellow pills with a “V” on one side and “36/10” on the 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1601-CR-88 | August 23, 2016 Page 3 of 6
other. Id. at 49; State’s Ex. 2. Detective Thomas and the CI then left and 

returned to the prearranged meeting place to give Detective Stefanatos the pills. 

[6] The State subsequently charged McCormick with class B felony dealing in a 

schedule II controlled substance. Following a trial, the jury found McCormick 

guilty as charged. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] McCormick challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. 

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we neither reweigh the 

evidence nor assess witness credibility. Bell v. State, 31 N.E.3d 495, 499 (Ind. 

2015). We look to the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that 

support the verdict and will affirm if there is probative evidence from which a 

reasonable factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Id. In short, if the testimony believed by the trier of fact is 

enough to support the verdict, then the reviewing court will not disturb the 

conviction. Id. at 500.

[8] To prove that McCormick committed class B felony dealing in a schedule II 

controlled substance, the State was required to prove that McCormick 

knowingly or intentionally delivered a controlled substance, pure or 

adulterated, classified in schedule II. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-2(a). Indiana 

Code Section 35-48-2-6(b)(1)(K) classifies hydrocodone as a schedule II 

controlled substance. 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1601-CR-88 | August 23, 2016 Page 4 of 6
[9] McCormick’s sole assertion on appeal is that the State provided insufficient 

evidence to prove the identity of the drug that he sold as hydrocodone. It is 

well settled that “the identity of a drug can be proven by circumstantial 

evidence.” Clifton v. State, 499 N.E.2d 256, 258 (Ind. 1986). Indeed, “[t]he 

opinion of someone sufficiently experienced with the drug may establish its 

identity, as may other circumstantial evidence.” Vasquez v. State, 741 N.E.2d 

1214, 1216 (Ind. 2001). 

[10] Here, both Detectives Thomas and Stefanatos identified the pills sold by 

McCormick as hydrocodone. Detective Thomas testified that, in his experience 

in prior drug investigations, he had seen hydrocodone pills just like the ones 

sold to him by McCormick. He further stated that he verified the identity of the 

pills by looking them up on “drugs.com” and in the “Drug Bible.” Tr. at 20. 

Similarly, Detective Stefanatos testified that he was personally familiar with the 

appearance of hydrocodone pills based upon his training and prior experience, 

and that he also confirmed the identification of the pills sold by McCormick on 

drugs.com. Moreover, McCormick himself referred to the pills as “Norcos,” 

which Detective Thomas recognized as the brand name for pills containing 

hydrocodone and acetaminophen. Id. at 19.1

 This evidence was more than 

sufficient to prove the identity of the drug that McCormick sold as 

hydrocodone. See, e.g., Halsema v. State, 823 N.E.2d 668, 673 n.1 (Ind. 2005) 

1 As noted by the State, the actual pills delivered by McCormick were admitted into evidence, as was the 

entry from drugs.com for acetaminophen and hydrocodone bitartrate, which provided a visual depiction of 

the pills.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1601-CR-88 | August 23, 2016 Page 5 of 6

 
(holding that testimony of officer trained to identify methamphetamine was 

alone sufficient evidence that substance at issue was methamphetamine); Boggs 

v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855, 865 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (holding that testimony of 

officers trained and experienced in identifying drug was alone sufficient 

evidence of identity of drug), trans. denied. We conclude that the State presented 

sufficient evidence to support McCormick’s conviction. Therefore, we affirm.

[11] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and May, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1601-CR-88 | August 23, 2016 Page 6 of 6