Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A man convicted for dealing in methamphetamine didn’t have his rights violated when the trial court admitted evidence of the drug deals and denied his continuance motion, the Court of Appeals of Indiana has ruled in affirming a lower court’s decision.
Anthony Cook was convicted of two counts of felony dealing in meth after he sold meth twice to a confidential informant working with the Franklin Police Department.
According to court records, the informant first met Cook at a fast-food restaurant while wearing an audio recording device.
Two detectives conducted surveillance nearby.
The informant returned with 3.59 grams of meth.
While the officers were reviewing evidence back at the police station, Cook called the informant to make a second drug deal on the same day, this time at a gas station.
The informant returned from that deal with 14 grams of meth.
The state charged Cook with Level 2 and Level 4 felony dealing in meth.
During a jury trial in the Johnson Superior Court, the state moved to admit exhibits consisting of audio and video recordings of the controlled buys.
Neither Cook nor the informant appeared at the trial, though Cook did have counsel present.
The trial court admitted the recordings over Cook’s objection.
Cook was convicted as charged and sentenced to 17 1/2 years.
On appeal, Cook argued admission of the video and audio evidence of the controlled buys violated his right to confrontation because the informant wasn’t called as a witness at trial.
He also argued the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance the morning of his trial.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with both arguments.
The Court of Appeals noted — and Cook conceded — that Indiana courts have “uniformly ruled” that criminal defendants don’t have a right to confront a confidential informant whose statements weren’t admitted for the truth of the matters asserted, citing Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 956, 958 (Ind. 1996).
“Here, Cook approached the CI about selling methamphetamine not once, but twice,” the opinion says. “And the CI’s statements during the controlled buys largely amount to only those necessary to facilitate the controlled buy.”
Next addressing the continuance, the Court of Appeals ruled that because Cook willfully didn’t attend his trial, the trial court doesn’t abuse its discretion by denying a motion for a continuance.
Judge Leanna Weissmann wrote the opinion. Judges Patricia Riley and Cale Bradford concurred.
The case is Anthony Cook v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-87.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.