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

John Jacob Warrum 

Mt. Vernon, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Richard C. Webster

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Darrell Mattingly,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 25, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

65A01-1501-CR-29

Appeal from the Posey Superior

Court

The Honorable S. Brent Almon, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

65D01-1404-FA-99

Bailey, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1501-CR-29 | August 25, 2015 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary

[1] Darrell Mattingly (“Mattingly”) was convicted of three counts of Dealing in 

Methamphetamine, as Class A felonies,1 and one count of Maintaining a 

Common Nuisance, as a Class D felony.2

 He now appeals, raising a single 

issue for our review: whether the State introduced evidence sufficient to rebut 

his affirmative defense of entrapment.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Mattingly had been friends with Rick Bowman (“Bowman”) during childhood, 

but the two lost touch after high school. Sometime in 2011, however, 

Mattingly and Bowman encountered one another in a tavern in Mount Vernon. 

The two men renewed their friendship, and by this time, both men had become 

involved in using methamphetamine. Bowman would occasionally stop by 

Mattingly’s home unannounced, and the two men would share the drugs.

[4] During the course of their friendship, Bowman had provided Mattingly with 

materials for the manufacture of methamphetamine. Bowman witnessed 

1 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1. The Indiana General Assembly enacted substantial revisions to our state’s 

criminal statutes, effective July 1, 2014. We refer throughout to the substantive provisions of our statutes in 

effect at the time of Mattingly’s offenses.

2 I.C. § 35-48-4-13.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1501-CR-29 | August 25, 2015 Page 2 of 8

 
Mattingly manufacture the drug using the “shake and bake” or “one pot” 

method, and had also seen Mattingly fail to do so successfully.3

[5] In 2012, Bowman became a confidential informant with the Posey County 

Narcotics Task Force and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As part of this 

work, Bowman agreed to identify individuals he knew to be involved in the 

manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. Mattingly was one of 

these individuals.

[6] On February 8, 2013, Bowman contacted Mattingly to inquire about obtaining 

methamphetamine. Mattingly told Bowman that he did not have money to 

purchase all the supplies, and stated specifically that he needed 

pseudoephedrine pills and lithium batteries. Bowman informed his handler, 

Kenneth Rose (“Rose”), an investigator with the Posey County Prosecutor’s 

Office and head of the Posey County Narcotics Task Force, that he had 

arranged for Mattingly to manufacture methamphetamine. Rose provided 

Bowman with the pseudoephedrine pills and lithium batteries Mattingly 

required.

[7] On February 9, 2013, in the context of a controlled buy monitored by Rose and 

other law enforcement officers, Bowman drove to Mattingly’s home in Mount 

Vernon and provided Mattingly two packages of pseudoephedrine pills and 

3 The “shake and bake” or “one pot” method involves combining a number of chemicals, including groundup pseudoephedrine tablets and strips of lithium pulled from lithium-containing batteries, into a single vessel. 

Tr. at 247. The vessel is shaken for a portion of the methamphetamine production process.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1501-CR-29 | August 25, 2015 Page 3 of 8

 
some lithium batteries. Mattingly began the manufacturing process and, late in 

the day, contacted Bowman to inform him that the drugs were ready. Bowman 

drove back to Mattingly’s home and retrieved a large portion of the 

methamphetamine. After the transaction was complete, Bowman turned the 

methamphetamine over to Rose. Bowman had been provided with a recording 

device, and Bowman used the device to record audio and video of the portions 

of the transaction when he was present in Mattingly’s home.

[8] On March 1, 2013, again within the context of a controlled buy, Rose provided 

Bowman with materials for the manufacture of methamphetamine, which 

Bowman again gave to Mattingly. On this occasion, Bowman provided four 

packages of pills, and a larger amount of methamphetamine was produced by 

Mattingly. Mattingly provided a large portion of the drugs to Bowman, and 

told Bowman that the product was of a higher quality than in the previous 

transaction because Mattingly had changed the process he used to dry the drug 

after the manufacturing process was complete.

[9] After the conclusion of an investigation, on April 3, 2014, the State issued a 

warrant for Mattingly’s arrest. On April 7, 2014, the State filed a charging 

information, which charged Mattingly with three counts of Dealing in 

Methamphetamine and one count of Maintaining a Common Nuisance.

[10] A jury trial was conducted from November 12 to November 14, 2014. During 

the trial, Mattingly pursued an affirmative defense of entrapment, and the jury 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1501-CR-29 | August 25, 2015 Page 4 of 8
was instructed as to the applicable law. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury 

found Mattingly guilty as charged.

[11] On December 19, 2014, a sentencing hearing was conducted. The trial court 

entered judgments of conviction against Mattingly at that time, and sentenced 

him to twenty six years imprisonment for each count of Dealing in 

Methamphetamine and twenty months imprisonment for Maintaining a 

Common Nuisance, with all the terms running concurrent with one another. 

This yielded an aggregate term of imprisonment of twenty six years.

[12] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Mattingly raises for our review the sole question of whether the state adduced 

sufficient evidence to rebut his affirmative defense of entrapment. We review a 

claim of entrapment under the same standard that applies to other sufficiency 

challenges. Griesemer v. State, 26 N.E.3d 606, 608 (Ind. 2015). Thus, we do not 

reweigh evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses. Id. We look to the 

probative evidence supporting the verdict and the reasonable inferences drawn 

therefrom. Id. If a reasonable trier of fact could infer beyond a reasonable 

doubt that the defendant was guilty, we will affirm the defendant’s conviction. 

Id.

[14] In Indiana, the affirmative defense of entrapment is defined by statute:

(a) It is a defense that:

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1501-CR-29 | August 25, 2015 Page 5 of 8
(1) the prohibited conduct of the person was the product of 

a law enforcement officer, or his agent, using persuasion or 

other means likely to cause the person to engage in the 

conduct; and

(2) the person was not predisposed to commit the offense.

(b) Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit 

the offense does not constitute entrapment.

I.C. § 35-41-3-9.

[15] Entrapment need not be formally pled. Griesemer, 26 N.E.3d at 609. “[R]ather, 

it is raised, often on cross-examination of the State’s witnesses, by affirmatively 

showing the police were involved in the criminal activity and expressing an 

intent to rely on the defense.” Id. Once entrapment has been raised, “[t]he 

State then has the opportunity for rebuttal, its burden being to disprove one of 

the statutory elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. There is no entrapment 

if the State shows either (1) there was no police inducement, or (2) the 

defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. Id. The entrapment defense 

exists because “we do not tolerate government activity that lures an otherwise 

law-abiding citizen to engage in crime. After all, the job of law enforcement is 

to catch established criminals, not manufacture new ones.” Id. (citations 

omitted).

[16] Mattingly contends that there was a failure of proof as to the second element of 

entrapment, predisposition. Whether a defendant was predisposed to commit a 

charged crime is a question for the trier of fact. Turner v. State, 993 N.E.2d 640, 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1501-CR-29 | August 25, 2015 Page 6 of 8
644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. “A jury may properly find 

predisposition from such circumstances as familiarity with drug jargon and 

prices, engaging in multiple transactions, and undertaking to arrange future 

transactions.” Id.

[17] Here, the State produced numerous items of evidence relevant to the question 

of Mattingly’s predisposition. Mattingly twice manufactured 

methamphetamine using supplies provided to Bowman by Posey County law 

enforcement personnel. Video and audio recordings from the transactions on 

February 9 and March 1, 2013 were introduced into evidence; the recordings 

show Mattingly handing over methamphetamine to Bowman without objection 

on both occasions. Bowman testified that when he asked Mattingly for 

methamphetamine, Mattingly requested pseudoephedrine pills and lithium 

batteries for the production process. Mattingly produced the methamphetamine 

outside of Bowman’s presence, and on both occasions Mattingly called 

Bowman several hours after obtaining the supplies to inform Bowman that the 

manufacturing process was complete. Further, during his testimony at trial, 

Mattingly testified to his knowledge of the methamphetamine production 

process; explained how he was able to improve the quality of the 

methamphetamine he produced on March 1, 2013, and stated that he wanted to 

improve the quality of the drug because he wanted to impress Bowman; and 

demonstrated knowledge of terminology related to quantities and prices for 

methamphetamine, as well as knowledge about the salability of poorly 

produced methamphetamine. See id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1501-CR-29 | August 25, 2015 Page 7 of 8
[18] Simply put, there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could 

conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the State had rebutted Mattingly’s 

claim of entrapment. We accordingly affirm Mattingly’s convictions.

[19] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1501-CR-29 | August 25, 2015 Page 8 of 8