Background
Police stopped a car registered to Jennifer Chadd after an officer recognized the driver as having suspended driving privileges. A police dog alerted, and officers found a backpack containing about eighteen grams of methamphetamine, a scale, roughly one hundred unused baggies, and drug-related tools. Chadd carried two phones and about $1,100. A locked safe beneath her passenger seat opened with a key from her keychain and contained two loaded handguns, one of which had been reported stolen.
The State charged Chadd with dealing and possessing methamphetamine, theft of a firearm, and possession of paraphernalia. Before trial, it gave notice that it would offer evidence under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b), including recent phone messages discussing quantities, prices, drug sales, and methamphetamine use, plus a note that an investigator characterized as a drug ledger. The trial court considered Chadd’s pretrial objection and allowed most of the evidence. Her lawyer did not renew the objection when the exhibits were introduced at trial.
Chadd’s defense was that the driver, her boyfriend, owned the contraband and that she was merely present. A jury instead convicted her of Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine and Level 5 felony theft of a firearm. The court imposed concurrent terms producing an aggregate eighteen-year sentence. Chadd challenged the other-acts evidence, the proof that she knew the handgun was stolen, and the sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in an opinion by Senior Judge Crone. Although the Evidence Rule 103(b) in effect at trial generally required an objection when evidence was offered, the majority exercised its discretion to reach the Rule 404(b) issue. The trial court had fully considered the objection only a week before trial, and a July 2026 amendment now says that a definitive pretrial ruling, including one on a motion in limine, need not be renewed. Judge Felix concurred in the result but would have found waiver and reviewed only for fundamental error under the rule applicable when Chadd was tried.
On the merits, the messages and phone note were admissible for purposes other than proving bad character. The dealing charge required proof that Chadd knowingly or intentionally possessed at least ten grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Her recent communications about drug quantities, prices, transactions, and use connected her to the backpack and tended to establish motive, plan, and opportunity to sell. Rule 403 did not require exclusion: relevant prosecution evidence is often prejudicial, but the court found no unfair prejudice substantially outweighing this evidence’s high probative value.
The firearm-theft evidence was also sufficient. Possession of recently stolen property alone does not establish knowledge that it was stolen, but possession may be combined with circumstantial evidence. Chadd gave vague answers about buying the Smith & Wesson from an unidentified person, while explaining the lawful purchase of the other handgun directly. In a patrol-car recording, she spontaneously suggested that possession of stolen property might fit better than theft. Her boyfriend’s testimony that the gun was his and came from his father conflicted with her account. The jury could infer knowledge from those facts without relying on possession alone.
Finally, the panel declined to revise the sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Although Chadd stressed her age, education, work history, and lack of convictions, she committed the charged conduct while on bond in two methamphetamine cases and allegedly committed more drug offenses after bonding out. Her aggregate sentence exceeded the advisory sentence for the highest-level felony by only six months, and she did not present the compelling positive evidence necessary to overcome deference to the trial court.
Key Takeaways
- Recent drug-sale communications can be admitted under Rule 404(b) when they connect a defendant to seized drugs and prove motive, plan, opportunity, or intent rather than mere propensity.
- Rule 403 excludes unfair prejudice, not the ordinary damaging effect of highly probative evidence.
- Possession of stolen property cannot alone prove knowledge, but evasive accounts, inconsistent testimony, and a defendant’s own statements may supply the additional circumstantial proof.
- The panel divided over preservation: the majority reached the merits in light of a fully litigated pretrial objection and the new Rule 103(b), while the concurrence would have applied the rule in force at trial.
Why It Matters
Indiana trial lawyers should pay close attention to the timing issue. The amended Evidence Rule 103(b), effective July 1, 2026, protects a claim after a definitive ruling on the record before or during trial, but the separate concurrence illustrates the risk of relying on a later amendment for an earlier trial. Renewing an objection remains the cautious course when there is any doubt about whether the ruling was definitive or which rule applies.
The opinion also offers a practical roadmap for both sides of a Rule 404(b) dispute. Prosecutors should identify a specific non-propensity link between the other act and an element genuinely disputed at trial. Defense counsel should attack that link and develop the Rule 403 balance rather than rely on the fact that the evidence is damaging. In stolen-property cases, counsel should likewise evaluate the entire circumstantial record; Indiana law demands more than unexplained possession but permits juries to draw knowledge from evasive statements and surrounding conduct.