May, J.
….
To prove Bowman committed Class A felony dealing in a narcotic within 1,000 feet of a school, the State was required to prove he knowingly or intentionally possessed a narcotic, in this case heroin, with the intent to deliver that narcotic within 1,000 feet of a school. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1 (2006). The State did not prove the substance [the confidential informant] gave Detective Phillips was heroin, as Detective Phillips did not field test the substance and the crime laboratory did not test it.
…..
Detective Phillips did not field test the substance that was obtained as a result of the “controlled” buy. [Footnote omitted.] In Vasquez [v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1214, 1216–17 (Ind. 2001)], our Indiana Supreme Court upheld Vasquez’s conviction of Class B misdemeanor inhaling toxic vapors. Police testified the substance they discovered in Vasquez’s possession smelled and looked like toluene, a substance listed under Ind. Code § 35-46-6-2(2)(A) as a prohibited inhalant.
… Unlike toluene, heroin does not have a distinct smell. Officer Phillips did not field test the substance [the confidential informant] claimed she obtained from Bowman during the “controlled” buy, and he testified only that it “look[ed] like heroin.” (Tr. at 157.)
In Smalley, we upheld Smalley’s conviction of dealing in cocaine even though the confidential informant had ingested it. We held the circumstantial evidence presented by the State was sufficient to prove Smalley dealt in cocaine. Smalley himself testified the substance was cocaine and the confidential informant bought two baggies of cocaine within minutes of each other. In Smalley, we relied on Clifton v. State, 499 N.E.2d 256, 258 (Ind. 1986), in which circumstantial evidence supported Clifton’s conviction of dealing in heroin. Clifton was in possession of seven packages similar to those sold to a confidential informant, and all of those packages were tested at a chemical lab and were determined to be heroin. Id. None of the circumstances in Smalley or Clifton exist in the instant case.
Because the State did not prove the product of the “controlled” buy was heroin, there was not sufficient evidence Bowman committed Class A felony dealing in a narcotic within 1,000 feet of a school. Accordingly, we reverse. [Footnote omitted.]
Reversed.
Barnes, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
….
To prove Bowman committed Class A felony dealing in a narcotic within 1,000 feet of a school, the State was required to prove he knowingly or intentionally possessed a narcotic, in this case heroin, with the intent to deliver that narcotic within 1,000 feet of a school. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1 (2006). The State did not prove the substance [the confidential informant] gave Detective Phillips was heroin, as Detective Phillips did not field test the substance and the crime laboratory did not test it.
…..
Detective Phillips did not field test the substance that was obtained as a result of the “controlled” buy. [Footnote omitted.] In Vasquez [v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1214, 1216–17 (Ind. 2001)], our Indiana Supreme Court upheld Vasquez’s conviction of Class B misdemeanor inhaling toxic vapors. Police testified the substance they discovered in Vasquez’s possession smelled and looked like toluene, a substance listed under Ind. Code § 35-46-6-2(2)(A) as a prohibited inhalant.
… Unlike toluene, heroin does not have a distinct smell. Officer Phillips did not field test the substance [the confidential informant] claimed she obtained from Bowman during the “controlled” buy, and he testified only that it “look[ed] like heroin.” (Tr. at 157.)
In Smalley, we upheld Smalley’s conviction of dealing in cocaine even though the confidential informant had ingested it. We held the circumstantial evidence presented by the State was sufficient to prove Smalley dealt in cocaine. Smalley himself testified the substance was cocaine and the confidential informant bought two baggies of cocaine within minutes of each other. In Smalley, we relied on Clifton v. State, 499 N.E.2d 256, 258 (Ind. 1986), in which circumstantial evidence supported Clifton’s conviction of dealing in heroin. Clifton was in possession of seven packages similar to those sold to a confidential informant, and all of those packages were tested at a chemical lab and were determined to be heroin. Id. None of the circumstances in Smalley or Clifton exist in the instant case.
Because the State did not prove the product of the “controlled” buy was heroin, there was not sufficient evidence Bowman committed Class A felony dealing in a narcotic within 1,000 feet of a school. Accordingly, we reverse. [Footnote omitted.]
Reversed.
Barnes, J., and Pyle, J., concur.