Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2323 | July 5, 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

Marielena Duerring

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Tiffany A. McCoy

Angela Sanchez

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Mark A. Eason, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 5, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2323

Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Michael A. 

Christofeno, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

20C01-1707-F2-21

Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2323 | July 5, 2019 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary and Issue

[1] Mark A. Eason, Jr. (“Eason”) appeals his convictions in the Elkhart Circuit 

Court of Level 2 felony dealing in a controlled substance and Level 2 felony 

dealing in a narcotic drug. Eason argues there is insufficient evidence to support 

his convictions. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In April 2017, a confidential cooperating source informed the Elkhart County 

Intelligence and Covert Enforcement Unit (“ICE”) that Eason was dealing 

heroin in Elkhart County. Tr. Vol. II, p. 82. The source helped ICE arrange a 

controlled buy from Eason on May 4, 2017. Id. at 86. The buy was audio and 

video recorded. Id. at 169. Eason gave an undercover officer, UC 150, a bag 

with brown powder in exchange for $1,900. Id. at 87, 175–76. The substance 

field tested positive for heroin. Id. at 105.

[3] UC 150 arranged a second controlled buy with Eason on May 9, 2017 to 

purchase one ounce of heroin. Id. at 181–83. This buy was also audio and video 

recorded. Id. at 186. Eason informed UC 150 that the price for one ounce of 

heroin was $3,625 and accepted $3,650 from UC 150 because Eason believed 

the bag might be over an ounce. Id.

[4] Nicole Kay (“Kay”), a forensic scientist with the Indiana State Police, 

conducted testing to identify the substances purchased on May 4 and 9, 2017. 

Id. at 202. She conducted three tests on each substance: ultraviolet 

spectrometry, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (“GCMS”), and thin 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2323 | July 5, 2019 Page 3 of 6

layer chromatography. Id. at 200–01. These tests are generally accepted and 

relied on in forensic science and are used throughout Indiana to determine the 

presence of drugs. Id. at 201–02. 

[5] The substance from May 4, 2017 weighed 10.04 grams. Id. at 205. The first test, 

ultraviolet spectrometry, was inconclusive. Id. at 206. Kay testified that 

inconclusive ultraviolet spectrometry results commonly occur when a substance 

is a mixture and clarified that an inconclusive result does not mean a substance 

does not contain illegal substances. Id. at 206–07. Kay then ran GCMS. The 

first run was weak, indicating but not confirming the presence of heroin. Id. at 

233. A second run was strong enough to confirm the presence of heroin. Id. at 

234. Finally, thin layer chromatography was positive for heroin. Id. at 212. 

Kay testified the substance from the May 4, 2017 controlled buy contained 

heroin. Id. 

[6] Kay followed the same process for the substance obtained during the May 9, 

2017 controlled buy. The substance weighed 29.28 grams. Id. at 216. The 

ultraviolet spectrometry test was again inconclusive, and the first run of GCMS 

was weak. Id. at 216, 233. The second run of GCMS was also faulty. Id. at 234. 

Kay concentrated the substance and the third analysis positively confirmed the 

presence of fentanyl, a Schedule II controlled substance. Id. at 234–35. Thin 

layer chromatography was also positive for fentanyl. Id. at 217. Kay testified the 

substance from May 9, 2017 contained fentanyl. Id. at 218. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2323 | July 5, 2019 Page 4 of 6

[7] The State charged Eason with Level 2 felony dealing in a controlled substance 

and Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug.1 Appellant’s Conf. App. p. 53. 

The State also alleged Eason is an habitual offender. Id. at 54. At the April 16, 

2018 bench trial, the trial court found Eason guilty of both counts, and Eason 

admitted to being an habitual offender. Tr. Vol. III, pp. 25, 28. The court 

sentenced Eason to an aggregate 45-year sentence, with 5 years suspended to 

probation.

2 Eason now appeals, arguing the State failed to present sufficient 

evidence to support his convictions. 

Standard of Review

[8] In examining the sufficiency of the evidence, the court will consider only the 

evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences that can 

be drawn therefrom. Morgan v. State, 22 N.E.3d 570, 573 (Ind. 2014). We will 

not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility. Id. We will affirm the 

conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could have found the elements of 

the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. State, 50 N.E.3d 767, 

770 (Ind. 2016). 

 

1 Initially, the State also charged Eason with Level 3 felony dealing in a narcotic drug and Level 4 felony 

dealing in a narcotic drug, but those charges were dropped prior to trial.

2 The trial court also revoked Eason’s probation in Cause No. 20C01-1606-F6-687 and Cause 20C01-1101-

FB-1 and re-imposed his previously suspended sentences, based on his conviction in this case. The trial court 

ordered Eason’s sentences in those cases to be served consecutive with each other and with his sentences in 

this case. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2323 | July 5, 2019 Page 5 of 6

Discussion

[9] To convict Eason of Level 2 dealing in a controlled substance, the State had to 

prove that Eason knowingly or intentionally delivered a controlled substance, 

pure or adulterated, classified in Schedule I, II, or III. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-

2(a)(1)(C). The offense is a Level 2 felony if the controlled substance is at least 

twenty-eight grams. See I.C. § 35-48-4-2(f)(1). To convict for Level 2 dealing in 

a narcotic drug, the State had to show that Eason knowingly or intentionally 

delivered a narcotic drug, pure or adulterated, classified in Schedule I or II. See

I.C. § 35-48-4-1(a)(1)(C). The offense is a Level 2 felony if the amount of the 

drug involved is at least ten grams. See I.C. § 35-48-4-1(e)(1). 

[10] Eason’s sole issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence that the 

substances he sold during the controlled buys contained heroin and fentanyl. 

Eason argues the evidence is insufficient because Kay stated that two runs of 

GCMS were “weak.” Appellant’s Br. at 9. Eason relies on Halferty v. State, 930 

N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied, wherein a trooper’s testimony 

about the conversion ratio of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine 

was insufficient to sustain a conviction for manufacturing three or more grams 

of methamphetamine based on the amount of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine 

recovered at the scene. The trooper testified that “in general” the conversion 

ratio between ephedrine/pseudoephedrine and methamphetamine is “usually” 

about 70-80%, and one gram of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine would produce 

“about” 0.7-0.8 gram[] of methamphetamine. The trooper’s use of imprecise 

terms did not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt that 4.61 grams of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2323 | July 5, 2019 Page 6 of 6

ephedrine/pseudoephedrine would produce three or more grams of

methamphetamine. Eason argues that Kay’s “weak” runs of GCMS are 

“likewise nebulous” and thus insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt 

that the substances contain heroin and fentanyl. 

[11] Halferty is inapplicable to this case. Here, “weak” is a description of the results 

of a single scientific test rather than a general description of Kay’s findings. 

Both substances had one weak GCMS run; Kay then concentrated and retested 

the substances, receiving positive results. Thin layer chromatography confirmed 

the positive results. The fact finder was justified in crediting Kay’s testimony 

about the nature of the substances. Eason’s argument is nothing more than a 

request for us to reweigh the evidence and assess the credibility of the witness 

on appeal, which we will not do. We therefore conclude that the State 

presented sufficient evidence to support Eason’s convictions. 

[12] Affirmed.

May, J., and Brown, J., concur.