Court Opinion

ID: 9897320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:10:07.130785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:05.899432
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                     Aug 08 2023, 8:59 am

                                                                         CLERK
                                                                     Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                        Court of Appeals
                                                                          and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Riley L. Parr                                              Theodore E. Rokita
Lebanon, Indiana                                           Indiana Attorney General
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana
                                                           Samuel J. Dayton
                                                           Deputy Attorney General
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kurt Russell,                                              August 8, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           22A-CR-2299
        v.                                                 Appeal from the Boone Superior
                                                           Court
State of Indiana,                                          The Honorable Matthew Kincaid,
Appellee-Plaintiff                                         Judge
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           06D01-2101-F1-000074

                                  Opinion by Judge May
                            Judges Mathias and Bradford concur.

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2299 | August 8, 2023                           Page 1 of 15
[1]   Kurt Russell appeals his conviction of Level 1 felony dealing in a controlled

      substance resulting in death. 1 He raises two issues, which we revise and restate

      as:

                 1. whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence

                 found on a cell phone; and

                 2. whether the trial court erred in denying Russell’s motion for a directed

                 verdict because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove

                 that Russell committed the crime charged.

      We affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   Maxwell Timbrook and Russell met when they both worked at a Costco store

      in Indianapolis, and they became friends. They exchanged hundreds of text

      messages, and their text conversations primarily concerned the acquisition and

      use of heroin and other narcotics. On January 16, 2020, Timbrook texted

      Russell: “Let’s get some pie[.]” (Ex. Vol. I at 107.) “Pie” was a code word

      Timbrook and Russell used for heroin. (Tr. Vol. III at 45.) On January 17,

      2020, Russell texted Timbrook to make sure Timbrook was still interested in

      getting drugs from Russell’s supplier, and Timbrook confirmed that he

      1
          Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.5(a) (2019).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2299 | August 8, 2023            Page 2 of 15
      remained interested. Russell responded: “Ill let u k now when I hear back from

      him.” (Ex. Vol. I at 109) (errors in original). Russell explained the supplier

      would only accept payment in the form of cash on delivery, and he stated the

      supplier would only deliver the drugs if the supplier could make a substantial

      profit.

[3]   Russell initially told Timbrook the supplier would deliver the drugs by 9:15

      p.m. on January 17, 2020, and Timbrook drove to an area near Russell’s home

      on the northwest side of Indianapolis. When the supplier did not arrive on

      time, Timbrook texted Russell: “Heading back home[.]” (Id. at 111.) Russell

      responded: “He says hes running a bit behind but[.]” (Id.) (errors in original).

      About twenty minutes later, Russell texted: “Just talked to him. 1030. So he’ll

      b out here 4 sure if u want to leave ur cash. It wont be long.” (Id.) (errors in

      original). Timbrook continued to text Russell with complaints about the

      supplier’s timeliness, and Russell responded: “He never gives me an exact time

      if hes not gonna hold to it.” (Id. at 112) (errors in original). When Timbrook’s

      complaints persisted, Russell stated: “I’m doing you a favor man. Tbh I could

      care less. Just chill for a few more dude.” (Id. at 113) (errors in original).

[4]   Between approximately 11:00 p.m. and 12:35 a.m., Russell and Timbrook had

      the following text exchange: 2

      2
          The surnames of Russell and Timbrook have been substituted for their initials.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2299 | August 8, 2023                   Page 3 of 15
        [Russell:] Hea pulling up bro

        [Timbrook:] K

        [Russell:] Alright come on

        [Timbrook:] K

        [Timbrook:] Here

        [Timbrook:] So this is 40 worth

        [Timbrook:] So just gimme 60 tomorrow and well call it even

        [Russell:] Go easy man. Stuff is wicked strong.

        [Russell:] N/c on the skool busses.[ 3] I felt bad for y so on house
        tonite.

        [Russell:] Sttaight down the middle on the other tho like we
        agreed to earlier

        [Timbrook:] Haha ok

        [Timbrook:] Ya stuff is pretty good this time

3
  Detective Joshua Samuelson of the Zionsville Police Department testified that “school bus is a common
term for Alprazolam or Xanax for the bars of them.” (Tr. Vol. III at 48.)

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2299 | August 8, 2023                             Page 4 of 15
              [Timbrook:] You smoke it or toot it

              [Russell:] Shits the bomb. Ill bring exttawill)ll)

              [Timbrook:] right on

              [Timbrook:] I think it’s fentanyl

      (Id. at 114-15) (errors in original) (footnote added).

[5]   On January 18, 2020, Jane Timbrook (“Jane”), Timbrook’s mother, texted

      Timbrook a couple times in the morning, and she became worried when

      Timbrook did not respond to her texts. Jane then called Timbrook’s father,

      Bobby Timbrook (“Bobby”). Bobby was in Arizona at the time, but Timbrook

      lived in Bobby’s Zionsville house. Bobby told Jane he had not heard from

      Timbrook, and Jane drove to Bobby’s house in Zionsville. Jane then found

      Timbrook in the kitchen “doubled over on the floor with his face down.” (Tr.

      Vol. II at 154.) Jane thought her son had overdosed, and she called 911.

[6]   Officer Joshua Rupp of the Zionsville Police Department was the first officer to

      arrive on the scene. When Officer Rupp arrived, he saw Jane “frantically

      waiving her arms and yelling at [him] stating that her son was dead inside of

      possible overdose from a [sic] heroin.” (Id. at 130.) Officer Rupp examined

      Timbrook’s body and then requested a coroner and detectives. Officer Rupp

      discovered cut up straws and a baggie with a yellow pill in it on the kitchen

      counter near Timbrook’s body, and next to these items was a blue cylinder

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2299 | August 8, 2023      Page 5 of 15
      typically utilized by drug users to grind pills and other substances. Subsequent

      lab testing found fentanyl present on one of the cut straws.

[7]   Officer Rupp also found a cell phone on the counter near Timbrook’s body with

      Timbrook’s driver’s license in a carrying case on the back of the phone.

      Detective Nicholas Johnson of the Zionsville Police Department also arrived on

      the scene and collected the cell phone found on the counter near Timbrook’s

      body. Detective Johnson gave the phone to Detective David Sellers of the

      Whitestown Metropolitan Police Department to see if he could extract data

      from the phone. Detective Sellers was not able to extract much data from the

      phone because he did not know the passcode to open the phone, and Detective

      Johnson returned the phone to Bobby.

[8]   Forensic pathologist Dr. Thomas Sozio performed an autopsy on Timbrook’s

      body. Dr. Sozio did not identify any pathology that would explain Timbrook’s

      death, and he left the autopsy open pending the results of a toxicology screen.

      After he reviewed those results, Dr. Sozio concluded four drugs contributed to

      Timbrook’s cause of death: alprazolam, tramadol, trazadone, and fentanyl. Dr.

      Sozio found fentanyl was present in Timbrook’s blood at three times the normal

      therapeutic level and the other three drugs were present at therapeutic levels.

[9]   Bobby kept the phone found on the counter near Timbrook’s body and a

      second, older phone that once belonged to Timbrook. A few weeks after

      Timbrook’s death, Bobby remembered a passcode that Timbrook had told him.

      He charged both phones, and the two phones “opened up” when he entered the

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2299 | August 8, 2023       Page 6 of 15
       passcode into them. (Id. at 181.) The data that Timbrook had stored in Apple’s

       iCloud then “dumped on both of the phones.” (Id. at 182.) Bobby went to the

       AT&T store “once [he] was able to get into the phone” in order “to make sure

       everything was going to be saved.” (Id. at 186.) Bobby then delivered the

       second, older phone to Detective Johnson. Bobby did not delete any text

       messages or other data from the phone before giving it to Detective Johnson.

       Detective Johnson provided the phone to Detective Sellers, and Detective

       Sellers was able to extract Timbrook’s text conversations and other data from

       the phone.

[10]   On January 13, 2021, the State charged Russell with Level 1 felony dealing in a

       controlled substance resulting in death. The trial court held a jury trial

       beginning on August 8, 2022. Dr. Sozio testified the presence of fentanyl gave

       him “the most concern” in finding Timbrook’s cause of death. (Id. at 225.) He

       explained:

               So, the three drugs … let’s take the three drugs, alprazolam,
               tramadol, and trazadone. If only those drugs were present in Mr.
               Timbrook’s blood that, I would not be able to say that was the
               cause of death.

       (Id. at 231.)

[11]   Russell objected to admission of the second, older cell phone and the text

       messages extracted from it. Russell argued admission of the phone ran afoul of

       Indiana Rule of Evidence 1002 and “the chain of custody was broken.” (Id. at

       235.) The State, in turn, asserted:

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2299 | August 8, 2023           Page 7 of 15
               The two phones were connected to Max’s Apple ID, Apple
               Cloud, whatever and they were clones exact same of each other.
               Judge, it is a dump of, of the records pertaining to that phone
               number. Whether it’s first phone, second phone, we don’t think
               that matters.

       (Id. at 236.) The trial court overruled Russell’s objection. At the close of the

       State’s case-in-chief, Russell moved for a directed verdict pursuant to Trial Rule

       50, but the trial court denied Russell’s motion. The jury returned a guilty

       verdict, and the trial court entered a judgment of conviction accordingly. On

       September 26, 2022, the trial court sentenced Russell to twenty-five years in the

       Indiana Department of Correction.

       Discussion and Decision
       1. Admission of Text Messages
[12]   Russell first argues the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the text

       messages extracted from the second phone. We review a trial court’s decision

       on the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Mack v. State, 23

       N.E.3d 742, 750 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. “A trial court abuses its

       discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and

       circumstances before the court or if the court misapplies the law.” Id.

[13]   Russell contends Indiana Rule of Evidence 1002 prohibited the State from

       introducing the data extracted from the second phone. “Generally, ‘[a]n

       original writing, recording, or photograph is required to prove its content’

       unless the Rules of Evidence or a statute provide otherwise.” Wise v. State, 26
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2299 | August 8, 2023           Page 8 of 15
       N.E.3d 137, 143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Ind. Evid. R. 1002) (brackets in

       Wise), trans. denied. Nonetheless, “[a] duplicate is admissible to the same extent

       as an original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s

       authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.” Ind.

       Evid. R. 1003. For instance, in Belcher v. State, we held the trial court erred in

       admitting a duplicate document because “two major portions of the document”

       were obscured. 797 N.E.2d 307, 310 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Conversely, in

       Hamilton v. State, we held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting

       a copy of a surveillance video recording rather than the original recording

       because the copy was the same as the original in all substantive respects and the

       defendant did not show that admission of the copy rather than the original was

       unfair to him. 182 N.E.3d 936, 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). Likewise in Wise, we

       held that when a rape victim used a handheld camcorder to record videos she

       found on her rapist’s phone, the handheld camcorder footage was admissible

       because the videos on the rapist’s phone were lost at the time of trial and the

       handheld camera footage displayed no evidence of tampering or other

       alteration. 26 N.E.3d at 143-44.

[14]   Russell faults the State for not presenting testimony “by anyone with

       knowledge about the intricacies of phone accounts and their machinations,

       about how messages” ended up on two of Timbrook’s phones. (Appellant’s Br.

       at 15.) However, Russell does not explain how it was unfair that the trial court

       admitted the contents of the second phone instead of the first when the two

       phones were associated with the same phone number and synced automatically

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2299 | August 8, 2023         Page 9 of 15
       with Apple iCloud. Detective Sellers explained “Apple allows you to log in to

       your . . . iCloud or your iTunes account on multiple devices.” (Tr. Vol. II at

       207.) Bobby testified that “when [he] remembered the code both of the phones,

       the cloud dumped on both of the phones. They just, they came up, okay. And

       so both phones were identical from what was pulled down from his information

       on his backups.” (Id. at 182.) Bobby denied deleting any text messages or

       manipulating either phone’s contents in any way before providing the second

       phone to law enforcement. He explained that he “one hundred percent”

       wanted to preserve what was on the phone. (Id. at 187.) Thus, we hold the trial

       court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the text messages extracted from

       the second phone because there is no indication that those messages were any

       different from the ones on the first phone. 4

       2. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[15]   Russell also asserts the State presented insufficient evidence to support his

       conviction, and therefore, the trial court erred in denying his motion for a

       4
         Russell also argues the location of the second phone “was totally unknown at the time of Timbrook’s
       death,” and he notes Bobby did not give the second phone to law enforcement until weeks later. (Appellant’s
       Br. at 16.) He characterizes this as a “chasm” in the chain of custody. (Id.) However, Russell does not
       assert that the whereabouts of the second phone were unknown once Bobby delivered it to the Zionsville
       Police Department, and “the rule requiring the State to show a continuous chain of custody or continuity of
       possession . . . operates . . . only for the period after the evidence comes into the possession of law
       enforcement personnel.” Arnold v. State, 436 N.E.2d 288, 291 (Ind. 1982). Therefore, Russell’s chain of
       custody argument fails. To the extent Russell asks us to discount Bobby’s testimony that he did not
       manipulate the contents of the second phone before delivering the phone to law enforcement, such argument
       is a request for us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Minix v. State, 726 N.E.2d 848, 853
       (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding defendant’s argument “is an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we must
       reject”), trans. denied.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2299 | August 8, 2023                            Page 10 of 15
       directed verdict. The standard of review following denial of a motion for a

       directed verdict “is essentially the same as that upon a challenge to the

       sufficiency of the evidence.” Bass v. State, 947 N.E.2d 456, 459 (Ind. Ct. App.

       2011), trans. denied. “If the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction on

       appeal, the denial of a motion for directed verdict cannot be error.” Beverly v.

       State, 543 N.E.2d 1111, 1114 (Ind. 1989). Our standard of review when

       evaluating claims of insufficient evidence is well-settled:

               Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims . . . warrant a deferential
               standard, in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge
               witness credibility. Rather, we consider only the evidence
               supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences drawn
               from that evidence. We will affirm a conviction if there is
               substantial evidence of probative value that would lead a
               reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the defendant was guilty
               beyond a reasonable doubt.

       Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256, 262-63 (Ind. 2020) (internal citations omitted).

[16]   Indiana’s drug-induced homicide (“DIH”) statute states, in relevant part:

               A person who knowingly or intentionally manufactures or
               delivers a controlled substance or controlled substance analog, in
               violation of:

                                                   *****

               (4) IC 35-48-4-2 (dealing in a schedule I, II, or III controlled
               substance);

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2299 | August 8, 2023         Page 11 of 15
               that, when the controlled substance is used, injected, inhaled,
               absorbed, or ingested, results in the death of a human being who
               used the controlled substance, commits dealing in a controlled
               substance resulting in death, a Level 1 felony.

       Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.5(a) (2019). Heroin is an opiate classified as a schedule I

       controlled substance, Ind. Code § 35-48-2-4(c) (2019), and fentanyl is a schedule

       II controlled substance. Ind. Code § 35-48-2-6(c) (2019). “Delivery” refers to

       “an actual or constructive transfer from one (1) person to another of a

       controlled substance, whether or not there is an agency relationship[.]” Ind.

       Code § 35-48-1-11 (1990).

[17]   The DIH statute “requires the State to prove a causal connection between the

       controlled substance delivered by the defendant and the victim’s death.” Yeary

       v. State, 186 N.E.3d 662, 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). The State must prove both

       that the decedent’s death resulted from the drugs the defendant distributed and

       that the death was reasonably foreseeable. Id. at 674. It is reasonably

       foreseeable that a person who receives a drug will consume it, and therefore, the

       person’s ingestion of the drug is not an intervening cause sufficient to break the

       chain of causation. Id. at 673.

[18]   Russell argues the State failed to show Russell “obtained fentanyl (and much

       less knew it was fentanyl), and that Timbrook ultimately died from the same

       fentanyl that Mr. Russell obtained.” (Appellant’s Br. at 19.) Fentanyl is an

       opiate that is “used in a lot of cases to cut heroin or as a substitute for heroin.”

       (Tr. Vol. II at 245.) Drug traffickers use fentanyl as a substitute for heroin

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2299 | August 8, 2023         Page 12 of 15
       because it is “cheaper and easier” to obtain than heroin and produces “stronger

       effects.” (Id.) Timbrook questioned the quantity of the drugs he received from

       Russell, texting: “So this is 40 worth[.]” (Ex. Vol. I at 115.) To which Russell

       responded: “Go easy man. Stuff is wicked strong[.]” (Id.) Thus, a reasonable

       juror could conclude Russell gave Timbrook fentanyl instead of heroin and

       knew he was doing so because Russell gave Timbrook a lower quantity of drugs

       than Timbrook expected and warned Timbrook about the drugs’ strength.

       Moreover, while Timbrook texted Russell seeking heroin, no heroin was

       present in Timbrook’s blood at the time of his death. Timbrook also texted

       Russell that the “stuff is pretty good” less than an hour after receiving the drugs

       from Russell. (Id. at 114.) This evidence permits a reasonable inference that

       Timbrook overdosed on the drugs he received from Russell.

[19]   Russell attempts to distinguish his actions from those prohibited by the DIH

       statute by arguing that he did not “deliver” drugs to Timbrook within the

       meaning of the DIH statute. (Appellant’s Br. at 20.) In Weldon v. U.S., Judge

       Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit observed:

               Suppose you have lunch with a friend, order two hamburgers,
               and when your hamburgers are ready you pick them up at the
               food counter and bring them back to the table and he eats one
               and you eat the other. It would be very odd to describe what you
               had done as “distributing” the food to him.

       840 F.3d 865, 866 (7th Cir. 2016) (vacating the district court’s denial of a

       petition for postconviction relief filed by person convicted of distributing an

       illegal drug resulting in death and remanding for an evidentiary hearing
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2299 | August 8, 2023       Page 13 of 15
       regarding whether the petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective in advising him

       to plead guilty). Russell asserts he “no more delivered nor distributed the drugs

       to Timbrook than the person who went to the lunch counter to retrieve the

       hamburgers for the group.” (Appellant’s Br. at 20.)

[20]   However, this argument inaccurately minimizes Russell’s role in Timbrook’s

       death. As the State notes, Russell “was an essential link in the chain of delivery

       between the source of the drugs and Timbrook, the ultimate user of that drug.”

       (Appellee’s Br. at 18.) Russell was the only one of the two who knew the

       supplier’s identity and communicated with the supplier. Russell was familiar

       with the supplier, and when Timbrook wanted heroin, he contacted Russell.

       Moreover, the State specifically rebutted Russell’s position that he was merely a

       co-purchaser in its closing statement. The State noted Russell texted Timbrook,

       “Im doing you a favor man.” (Ex. Vol. I at 113.) The State observed that text

       “doesn’t sound like a co-purchaser. That sounds like he is getting him the

       drugs.” (Tr. Vol. III at 78.) The State also pointed to Russell’s text, “N/c on

       the skool busses. I felt bad for y so on house tonite.” (Ex. Vol. I at 114.) The

       State argued: “I don’t know about you all, but on the house tonight does not

       sound like a co-purchaser.” (Tr. Vol. III at 78.) While Russell invites us to

       reweigh the evidence in this regard, we will not do so. See Woodson v. State, 966

       N.E.2d 135, 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (holding defendant’s argument “is little

       more than a request to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do”), trans.

       denied. Therefore, we hold the State presented sufficient evidence that Russell

       delivered fentanyl to Timbrook and Timbrook fatally overdosed after ingesting

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2299 | August 8, 2023      Page 14 of 15
       the fentanyl. See, e.g., Veach v. State, 204 N.E.3d 331, 338 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023)

       (holding State presented sufficient evidence to support a conviction under the

       DIH statute after defendant delivered a lethal dose of fentanyl to the decedent),

       trans. denied.

       Conclusion
[21]   The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence extracted

       from a phone other than the one found on the counter near Timbrook’s body

       because the contents of both phones was the same given that they were linked

       to the same iCloud account. In addition, the State presented sufficient evidence

       that Russell delivered fentanyl to Timbrook and Timbrook died after ingesting

       that fentanyl. Therefore, we affirm the trial court.

[22]   Affirmed.

       Mathias, J., and Bradford, J. concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2299 | August 8, 2023      Page 15 of 15