Opinion ID: 2210270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Insufficient Evidence of Dealing in Purported Controlled Substance

Text: The defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that he dealt in a substance represented to be a controlled substance. The evidence favorable to the judgment reveals that an undercover police officer heard the defendant say that he was selling bogeyman, which the record indicates was the defendant's term for a substance that resembles, but is not, cocaine. The defendant neither told the officer that he was selling him cocaine nor informed him that the bogeyman did not contain a controlled substance. Rather, the defendant informed the officer that the substance could be resold as cocaine and that the officer could make nine times the money he paid for it. After being paid two thousand dollars, the defendant provided the officer with a brown paper bag containing three smaller plastic bags filled with a white powdery substance. The defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient because the defendant did not represent it to be cocaine and that the officer who bought it knew that it was not cocaine. The statute under which the defendant was convicted [7] reads: (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally delivers or finances the delivery of any substance, other than a controlled substance or a drug for which a prescription is required under federal or state law, that: (1) is expressly or impliedly represented to be a controlled substance; (2) is distributed under circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the substance is a controlled substance; or (3) by overall dosage unit appearance, including shape, color, size, markings, or lack of markings, taste, consistency, or any other identifying physical characteristic of the substance, would lead a reasonable person to believe that the substance is a controlled substance; commits dealing in a substance represented to be a controlled substance, a Class D felony. (b) In determining whether representations have been made, subject to subsection (a)(1), or whether circumstances of distribution exist, subject to subsection (a)(2), the trier of fact may consider, in addition to other relevant factors, the following: (1) Statements made by the owner or other person in control of the substance, concerning the substance's nature, use, or effect. (2) Statements made by any person, to the buyer or recipient of the substance, that the substance may be resold for profit. (3) Whether the substance is packaged in a manner uniquely used for the illegal distribution of controlled substances. (4) Whether: (A) the distribution included an exchange of, or demand for, money or other property as consideration; and (B) the amount of the consideration was substantially greater than the reasonable retail market value of the substance. IND.CODE § 35-48-4-4.5 (1993). The State concedes that the defendant never told the officer that the substance was cocaine; however, it argues that the defendant impliedly represented that the substance was a controlled substance when he told the officer that it could be resold at a profit. In construing a statute, we look to the plain, ordinary, and usual meaning of the language unless the statute itself clearly provides a contrary meaning. Marion County Sheriff's Merit Bd. v. Peoples Broadcasting Corp., 547 N.E.2d 235, 237 (Ind.1989). We also examine the statute as a whole, Matter of Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 38 (Ind. 1991), and we do not presume that the legislature intended language used in a statute to be applied illogically or to bring about an unjust or absurd result, State ex rel. Hatcher v. Lake Superior Court, Room Three, 500 N.E.2d 737, 739 (Ind.1986). The statute expressly authorizes the trier of fact to consider the circumstances of the sale in determining whether there has been an implied representation that the substance is a controlled substance. IND.CODE § 35-48-4-4.5(b). Here, the defendant delivered two ounces of non-controlled substances, caffeine and ephedrine, for the price of two thousand dollars. The defendant told the officer he could make nine times that amount on re-sale. In addition, the substance, totaling two ounces, was divided and packaged in three separate plastic bags that were placed in a brown paper bag. Finally, in delivering the substance, the defendant placed the bag on the floorboard of the car, rather than directly handing it to the officer. The criminal activity proscribed by the statute is not limited to circumstances when an offender explicitly and personally represents that the substance delivered is a controlled substance. The actual knowledge of the purchaser is not an element of the charged offense. The determinative element is whether the non-controlled substance was expressly or impliedly represented to be a controlled substance. IND.CODE § 35-48-4-4.5(a)(1). In this case, the defendant was engaged in selling a substance that he expressly represented could be sold as cocaine for a profit. IND.CODE § 35-48-4-4.5(b)(2). Further, the defendant packaged the substance in a manner uniquely used for the illegal distribution of controlled substances. IND.CODE § 35-48-4-4.5(b)(3). Finally, the distribution of this substance included an exchange of money in an amount substantially greater than the reasonable market value of the substance. IND.CODE § 35-48-4-4.5(b)(4). On these facts, we find that the evidence is sufficient to support this conviction.