Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1331 | December 30, 2019 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

Alexander L. Hoover

Law Office of

Christopher G. Walter, P.C.

Nappanee, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Samuel J. Dayton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Andrew D. Rodgers,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

December 30, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-1331

Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Michael A. 

Christofeno, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

20C01-1705-F4-21

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1331 | December 30, 2019 Page 2 of 6

[1] Andrew Rodgers appeals his conviction for Level 6 Felony Maintaining a 

Common Nuisance,1 arguing that the evidence is insufficient. Finding the 

evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts

[2] In the spring of 2017, undercover Elkhart City Police Officer UC 382 was 

conducting an investigation that led them2to 1702 Prairie Street. During the 

investigation, UC 382 and other officers observed two types of traffic in and out 

of the residence:

There was one gentleman [later identified as Rodgers] that would 

always come up, and you could tell that he was keying into the 

door, unlocking it; and when he would leave, he would turn 

around and make a motion like he was locking the door. The 

other type of traffic . . . [was] people coming up to the door and 

almost knocking and standing, like they were waiting for 

someone inside to come let them in, like they didn’t have 

ownership in [the] home, they were just visiting. And [the 

officers] saw quite a bit of that traffic that would come and go 

pretty quickly.

Tr. Vol. II p. 201-02. The visits were “very short,” lasting from two to ten 

minutes. Id. at 202.

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-45-1-5(c).

2 The name and gender of UC 382 remain confidential.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1331 | December 30, 2019 Page 3 of 6

[3] On May 12, 2017, UC 382 and other officers executed a search warrant of 1702 

Prairie Street. Rodgers was one of two people found inside. He was in his 

bedroom, which was upstairs in the residence. He had two cell phones in his 

pocket and a third cell phone near the bed. Near the foot of the bed, the officers 

found a green tote that contained, among other things, a marijuana grinder with 

a “green residue or plant-like residue or broken down leafy residue” and a box 

of sandwich baggies. Id. at 80. On or near the floor, the officers found a baggie 

corner. Testing later revealed that the baggie corner contained residue of 

Pentylone, commonly referred to as “bath salts.” Id. at 158.

[4] The officers also found a plastic shopping bag “full of discarded sandwich bags 

with at least one to two missing corners” near the bedroom door. Id. at 81.

3

 

Several of these baggies contained a white residue, which testing later revealed 

to be cocaine residue. Additionally, the officers found Swisher Sweet wrappers 

and cigarillo wrappers mixed up with an “organic-looking,” “plant-like 

material.” Id. at 85. The officers determined that this material was consistent 

with the innards of cigarillos that had been extracted and not burned. The 

officers also found a small yellow bag containing a green leafy substance, which 

the officers determined to be marijuana based upon the substance’s visual 

appearance and odor.

 

3 The State introduced evidence showing that baggie corners are common tools used to package illegal drugs. 

Tr. Vol. II p. 80-81, 119.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1331 | December 30, 2019 Page 4 of 6

[5] On May 17, 2017, the State charged Rodgers with multiple felonies, which it

later amended to the following charges: Level 6 felony possession of cocaine,

Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance, and Class B misdemeanor 

possession of marijuana. Following a jury trial, the jury found Rodgers guilty 

of maintaining a common nuisance and not guilty of the other two charges. On 

May 16, 2019, the trial court sentenced Rodgers to a fully suspended sentence 

of two and one-half years. Rodgers now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Rodgers’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support 

his conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a 

conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable 

inferences supporting the conviction and will neither assess witness credibility 

nor reweigh the evidence. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We 

will affirm unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime 

proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[7] To convict Rodgers of Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance, the 

State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or 

intentionally maintained a building, structure, vehicle, or other place that was 

used to unlawfully use, manufacture, keep, offer for sale, sell, deliver, or finance 

the delivery of a controlled substance or an item of drug paraphernalia. 

I.C. § 35-45-1-5(c). Rodgers does not dispute that the bedroom belonged to him 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1331 | December 30, 2019 Page 5 of 6

or that he acted with the requisite intent. Instead, he challenges the evidence 

demonstrating that his bedroom met the definition of a common nuisance.

[8] The State presented the following evidence regarding items found in Rodgers’s 

bedroom:

• Officers found forty to forty-five baggies missing at least one corner; 

some of the baggies were missing two corners. Given the evidence that 

baggie corners are common tools used to package illegal drugs, those 

missing corners imply that the baggies had been used to package between 

forty to ninety units of illegal drugs.

• Officers found a marijuana grinder (containing a green, plant-like 

substance), empty cigarillo boxes, empty Swisher Sweet and cigarillo 

wrappers, and discarded tobacco. It is common for people to buy 

Swisher Sweets, cut them open, remove the tobacco, and pack them with 

the drug of choice. Tr. Vol. II p. 85.

• Officers found multiple baggies, some of which bore a white residue, 

later revealed to be cocaine.

• Officers found a baggie corner containing Pentylone—i.e., bath salts—

residue.

• Officers found a baggie containing what they determined to be marijuana 

based on its appearance and odor.

• Officers observed multiple people coming to Rodgers’s house to make 

brief visits lasting from two to ten minutes. While a single short visit 

“doesn’t mean a whole lot,” when it occurs “systematically over the 

course of several days,” it is a “sign of drug activity or drug distribution 

coming and going from that home.” Id. at 202.

• Rodgers had two cell phones in his pocket and a third by his bed. The 

State presented evidence that drug dealers often use multiple cell phones, 

as opposed to law-abiding citizens, who would typically maintain only 

one cell phone.

We find that the evidence showing the presence of drug residue, drug 

paraphernalia, and indices of drug dealing and distribution is sufficient to allow 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1331 | December 30, 2019 Page 6 of 6

a reasonable juror to infer that Rodgers was using his bedroom to use, 

manufacture, keep, offer for sale, sell, deliver, or finance the delivery of a 

controlled substance or an item of drug paraphernalia. See Davis v. State, 791 

N.E.2d 266, 270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that convictions may be 

sustained based on circumstantial evidence alone if the evidence supports a 

reasonable inference of guilt).

[9] Rodgers seems to suggest that because the jury found him not guilty of 

possession of cocaine and marijuana, it is inconsistent that the jury found him 

guilty of maintaining a common nuisance. But it is well established that 

“inconsistent verdicts are permissible and not subject to appellate review[.]” 

Beattie v. State, 924 N.E.2d 643, 644 (Ind. 2010). Therefore, this argument is 

unavailing.

[10] We find the evidence sufficient to support Rodgers’s conviction for Level 6 

felony maintaining a common nuisance.

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

Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.