Opinion ID: 2209028
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Wallace claims the evidence was insufficient to convict him of dealing in a Schedule II controlled substance on August 23 and August 31. When reviewing such claims, this Court will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Loyd v. State (1980), 272 Ind. 404, 398 N.E.2d 1260, cert. denied 449 U.S. 881, 101 S.Ct. 231, 66 L.Ed.2d 105. We will look only to the probative evidence, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, which support the verdict to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Wallace claims his involvement was too minor to warrant conviction because he merely introduced a drug buyer to a seller. However, one who aids another in a criminal offense can be convicted of that offense as a principal. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4 (Burns 1985 Repl.). An accomplice is criminally responsible for the probable and natural consequences of the principal's plan. Proctor v. State (1979), 272 Ind. 357, 397 N.E.2d 980. The evidence need not show that the accomplice personally participated in the commission of each element. Harris v. State (1981), Ind., 425 N.E.2d 154. On the other hand, the law requires a minimum level of involvement before even accessory liability attaches. A similar claim of minimal involvement was made by the defendant in Hudak v. State (1983), Ind. App., 446 N.E.2d 615, in which the Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant's conviction for dealing in a Schedule II controlled substance. In that case, the defendant offered to arrange the drug buy, quoted an approximate price, introduced the officers to the seller, and accepted compensation for his efforts. The court concluded: The trier of fact may infer participation from several factors considered together. These included presence, failure to oppose the crime, companionship with the principal, and conduct before, during and after the offense which tends to show complicity. The totality of Hudak's acts make it reasonable for the jury to have inferred his participation in the principal's (seller's) drug sale. Therefore, the evidence is sufficient. (citations omitted.) Hudak, 446 N.E.2d at 615. The facts in this case are substantially similar, and we believe the evidence clearly supports Wallace's convictions as an accessory. Without Wallace, the drug purchases at issue would not have occurred. Wallace differentiates his situation from Hudak by alleging that the police or their informant initiated the transactions, that he quoted no prices, that he took no compensation, and that he did not make the arrangements for the purchase of the controlled substances. Viewing only the evidence most favorable to the verdict, we cannot agree with Wallace's version of the facts nor with his conclusion that Hudak is inapplicable. The police contacted Wallace only after he suggested they call him the next time they sought drugs. Wallace gave an original estimate for the trees which was close to the figure paid. He introduced the officers to Mak and accompanied them to the location where Mak obtained the drugs. Mak and Wallace each received two pills as their commission on the first excursion and arranged a drug sale of their own during the second exchange. The evidence was sufficient to support both convictions. Wallace also claims the evidence was insufficient to rebut entrapment, although he never explicitly raised that defense. While entrapment is an affirmative defense, it need not be specifically pleaded. Jackson v. State (1982), Ind. App., 441 N.E.2d 29. The defendant must only present evidence of police involvement before the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the defendant has not been induced or hired by a governmental agency to commit a crime which he had no predisposition to commit. Id.; Williams v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 94, 409 N.E.2d 571. A showing of predisposition, therefore, effectively negates the defense of entrapment. Some factors which indicate predisposition are knowledge of drug prices, knowledge of sources of drug suppliers, use and understanding of terminology almost exclusively practiced in the drug market, solicitation of future drug sales, and multiple sales to officers. Henrichs v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 599; Marts v. State (1982), Ind., 432 N.E.2d 18; Silva v. State (1980), Ind. App., 410 N.E.2d 1342. On appeal, this Court will review a claim of entrapment using the standards that apply to other challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Everroad v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 994. Merely affording the defendant an opportunity to commit a crime does not constitute entrapment. Drollinger v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 99, 409 N.E.2d 1084. Even if the State initiates the transaction, entrapment will not exist if the police informant merely provided an opportunity for the defendant to carry out his natural propensity to commit a crime. Thomas v. State (1976), 264 Ind. 410, 345 N.E.2d 835. Wallace fed his own dependance though commissions from his arrangements of drug deals. Though he was out on bond on other drug charges, he continued to play the role of intermediary between buyer and seller to feed his habit. The evidence establishes that he was familiar with drug parlance and prices, that he solicited future drug sales, that he was involved in multiple sales to the officers, and that he was familiar with several different drug suppliers. The undercover officers merely afforded Wallace the opportunity to fulfill his natural propensity to deal in drugs. Therefore, the jury was entitled to conclude that Wallace was not entrapped into committing these offenses.