ILNews

COA upholds drug conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a man’s argument that his charges should be dismissed or he deserved a mistrial, finding sufficient evidence to support his dealing in cocaine conviction.

In Ronyai Thompson v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-1106-CR-323, Ronyai Thompson raised three arguments on appeal: that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to dismiss the charges against him under Indiana’s statute barring successive prosecutions; that the trial court improperly denied his Batson challenges; and that evidence was insufficient to support his Class A felony dealing in cocaine conviction.

Police had a house under surveillance, believing that drug transactions were happening there. While observing the home, police saw a man – later determined to be Thompson – driving to and from the duplex. When police decided to contact the people inside the home, they saw Thompson inside. After talking to Thompson, police determined he was the man driving the car and that his driving privileges had been suspended. After a search of the home, Thompson was charged in one case with driving while suspended; he was charged with various drug offenses and driving while suspended under another cause number.

He pleaded guilty to the driving while suspended charge in the first case and was later convicted of dealing in cocaine in the other case. At the trial under the second cause number, he tried to have the charges dismissed based on the state’s successive prosecution statute. He also challenged the state’s peremptory challenges of two African-American jurors.

The COA concluded that it may have been better for the state to join all the charges against Thompson, but that there was no evidence that the driving while suspended offense in the first case was part of a single scheme or plan with the drug offenses in the second case. With regards to the Batson challenges, other jurors who were not African-American were struck from the jury for similar reasons as the two African-American jurors. The judges found the trial court didn’t err when it allowed the state to use its peremptory challenges to strike the two African-American members of the venire.

Finally, the judges concluded sufficient evidence existed of Thompson’s constructive possession of cocaine to support the conviction.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT