ILNews

Confidential informant testimony did not hinder defense

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man who was arrested after a confidential informant arranged drug buys was not hindered by the fact that the informant testified at trial anonymously, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

In Tyronne Dickerson v. State of Indiana, No. 45A04-1104-CR-160, Tyronne Dickerson appealed his convictions of three counts of Class A felony dealing in narcotics.

The case involves two controlled drug buys on Jan. 25 and 28, 2010. In each instance, Dickerson delivered heroin to the same confidential informant – a friend whom Dickerson had known since 2008. Audio and video recordings were made of each transaction, and police maintained visual surveillance of the first. During the second transaction, Dickerson removed the drugs from a cigarette box located within the console of the vehicle he drove to the scene.

In his appeal, Dickerson claimed the court erred by allowing the informant to testify anonymously. The COA rejected that claim, holding that Dickerson acknowledges that he did not object to the limitations placed upon his cross-examination of the confidential informant at trial. The appeals court held that Dickerson, by way of appeal, attempted to circumvent waiver by alleging fundamental error. But the court wrote that Dickerson would need to prove that testimony by the confidential informant seriously and substantially tainted the entire trial. Dickerson did not prove that claim, and the COA affirmed the trial court.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • informant wearing audio and video
    During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

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. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT