Opinion ID: 1980807
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: David Deel's testimony.

Text: Over Lay's objection, and after more argument about prior bad acts as evidence of a common scheme or plan, the trial court permitted David Deel to testify that between late August or early September of 1992, Lay had sold LSD to Tony Wooten and him ten times. Except for one occasion, the transactions always took place at Wooten's house. The quantities involved were 100 to 300 hits, 90% of which Wooten and Deel would resell, splitting the profits. The transactions always occurred after midnight because Lay worked the second shift at a factory. The trial court decided that Deel's testimony was admissible to prove a common scheme or plan and relied on Clark v. State (1989), Ind., 536 N.E.2d 493. In Clark, this court reversed a drug conviction because the trial court had admitted evidence of two prior drug convictionsone seven-years old, the other thirteen-years oldas evidence of a common scheme or plan. The court said, To call the evidence admitted in this case proof of `common scheme or plan' is simply to say that one who committed a similar crime more than a decade ago may now be guilty of doing it again. Id. at 495. In arriving at its decision, however, this court said the following: Our cases have been consistent with the prevailing rule in this country that the common scheme or plan exception requires that the uncharged crime be tangibly connected to the one for which the defendant is on trial. Without some nexus, the evidence would wrongly impugn the defendant's character without being probative of a material fact. The State offers two cases in support of its argument, Manuel v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 436, 370 N.E.2d 904, and Downer v. State (1982), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 953. In Manuel, the State was permitted to introduce testimony from officers who had participated in several marijuana sales with the defendant within a period of about four months commencing just before the transaction for which the defendant was being tried. This Court held that these transactions were admissible because they were part of the same scheme as the offense being tried. In Downer, the man who purchased drugs from Downer in the transaction for which the latter was being tried testified he had engaged in continuous transactions with Downer for five years. This series of transactions, the Court held, was part of a common scheme. In another case, this Court upheld use of testimony about uncharged drug transactions nine months prior to the charged transactions. Sweet v. State (1986), Ind., 498 N.E.2d 924. In resolving the issue, Justice DeBruler wrote: The November transactions are not so remote in time or circumstance as to be irrelevant. The February transaction precedes the charged transactions by nine months. Although more remote in time, the circumstances of the transaction tend to prove a common scheme and plan of conducting a drug dealing business for profit. Id. at 928. The earlier sales and those for which the defendant was being tried were connected in another way: the same informant was involved in both. Id. at 494-95 (some citations omitted). In Hardin v. State (1993), Ind., 611 N.E.2d 123, this court reversed a drug conviction and said of the evidence admitted of prior uncharged conduct: In the present case, the evidence does not conform to either branch of the common scheme or plan exception. The evidence was not properly admissible under the modus operandi branch or common scheme or plan. The State has not shown that Hardin committed the past uncharged misconduct and the present, charged crime using methods so similar as to comprise Hardin's signature. The record does not reflect any precise methods Hardin may have used in the uncharged activities. Nothing appears to be strikingly similar between the charged crime and the uncharged misconduct. Indeed, the record reflects no more than the allegations that Hardin acted badly on previous occasions. At best, the charged and uncharged transactions appear to be mere repetition of crimes. We likewise find that the evidence does not conform to the res gestae branch of the common scheme or plan exception. Although the character of the crimes was similar in that it involved drug transactions, the time and the place of the separate crimes were not sufficiently related to establish some plan that embraced both crimes. The present, charged crime and the drug dealing activities, alleged in Trooper Wilkerson's and Diahann Watson's testimony, were not a part of the same, uninterrupted transaction. Over one month in time separated the two acts. Also, the charged crime occurred at a location that was distinct, separate, and somewhat distant from the uncharged, alleged transaction. In fact, in the uncharged action, no drug transaction occurred. Further, a third party, not Hardin, was the drug seller in the uncharged action. Id. at 130. Applying Clark, together with the cases it relies upon, and Hardin to the facts of this case, the admission of Deel's testimony about his previous dealings with Lay fall reasonably within the common scheme or plan exception. [5] The State charged Lay with delivering LSD to Tony Wooten who, together with Deel, had an ongoing business relationship with Lay to deal in drugs. The charged transaction was part of that relationship in which Lay would sell LSD to Wooten and Deel, who would then resell the LSD to others. Additionally, the charged transaction took place at Wooten's house, which is where all of the uncharged transactions, save one, also took place. The charged transaction also took place after midnight as had the uncharged transactions. And the charged transaction also involved precisely the same people as the uncharged transactions. Although it permitted Deel to testify about the uncharged conduct, the trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction that the uncharged conduct had been offered to show a common scheme or plan that included the charged activity. We hold that the trial court properly permitted Deel to testify about his previous dealings with Lay and gave the jury an appropriate limiting instruction. See also United States v. Zapata, 871 F.2d 616 (7th Cir.1989); United States v. Zolicoffer, 869 F.2d 771 (3rd Cir.1989), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1113, 109 S.Ct. 3172, 104 L.Ed.2d 1034; United States v. Witt, 618 F.2d 283 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 882, 101 S.Ct. 234, 66 L.Ed.2d 107.