The Indiana Court of Appeals has partially reversed the conviction of Taylor Mitchell Fischer, finding that the trial court made a reversible error by admitting crucial toxicology evidence due to the State failing to adhere to specific statutory requirements for introducing laboratory reports. Fischer was convicted of several offenses related to the neglect of his infant child, C.F., who died in September 2023.
The Tragic Incident and Initial Findings
The case revolves around the death of 11-month-old C.F. in Evansville. On September 11, 2023, the child’s mother, Kaytlen Dossett, called 911 after finding C.F. unresponsive. First responders found the infant pale, motionless, and turning purple, indicating a severe lack of circulation and oxygen. Paramedics believed the child was already deceased upon their arrival.
While emergency medical efforts were underway, arriving police officers immediately detected the strong odor of marijuana in the residence. A subsequent search, conducted after officers observed a glass smoking pipe in plain view, uncovered numerous drug-related items, including substances later identified as containing fentanyl, xylazine, and methamphetamine. Fischer later admitted the pipe and certain containers belonged to him.
The Toxicology Report Controversy
The central issue on appeal concerned the admissibility of the toxicology report detailing the substances found in C.F.’s system, which was critical to the most severe charge: neglect of a dependent resulting in death, a level 1 felony.
The initial toxicology testing was performed by NMS Laboratories in Pennsylvania. The resulting report, reviewed by Dr. Brianna Peterson, indicated a fatal level of fentanyl in the infant’s blood, alongside other substances, including a presumptive positive result for naloxone (Narcan).
As trial approached months later, the State encountered issues with Dr. Peterson’s availability. They substituted Dr. Justin Brower, who completed a new, identical report shortly before the November 2024 trial began. Dr. Brower testified that while he did not perform any physical, analytical testing himself, he independently reviewed all the raw data and chain-of-custody documents to ensure accuracy, stating, “That’s my report.”
Fischer’s defense objected vehemently, arguing that Dr. Brower’s testimony and report constituted inadmissible hearsay, violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and breached Indiana’s “notice-and-demand” statute governing laboratory evidence.
Statutory Violation: The Notice Requirement
The Court of Appeals focused heavily on Indiana Code § 35-36-11-2. This statute mandates that if the prosecutor intends to introduce a laboratory report as evidence, they “must file a notice of intent” at least 20 days before trial. The State conceded it never filed this required notice.
Indiana Code § 35-36-11-4 outlines the penalty for non-compliance: the State cannot introduce the report “without the testimony of the person who conducted the test and prepared the laboratory report.”
Judge Brown, writing for the Court, found this violation dispositive. The court noted that Dr. Brower explicitly testified he performed “no physical, analytical testing.” Therefore, even if his review qualified him as a preparer under some interpretations, he was definitively not the person who *conducted* the test. Because the State failed to provide the required notice and then introduced the report through a witness who did not perform the initial analysis, the evidence was improperly admitted under the statute.
The trial court had reasoned that the statute only applied when a report was introduced “without a witness,” but the appellate court disagreed, emphasizing the conjunctive nature of the statutory language (“conducted the test *and* prepared the laboratory report”).
Reversal Required Due to Impact on Jury Verdict
Having established that the admission of the toxicology report was a non-constitutional error, the appellate court next assessed whether the error was harmless. Under Indiana’s “probable impact test,” the party seeking relief (Fischer) must show the error undermines confidence in the outcome.
The Court determined the error was not harmless, particularly concerning the level 1 felony neglect conviction. The toxicology evidence was crucial for two main reasons:
1. Cause of Death: The forensic pathologist, Dr. Keifer, relied directly on the toxicology report to conclude C.F.’s cause of death was “fentanyl intoxication.”
2. Intent: The presence of multiple drugs, especially the presumptive positive result for naloxone (Narcan), was used by the prosecutor during closing arguments to demonstrate Fischer’s “knowing intent.” The prosecutor argued that the presence of Narcan implied Fischer recognized the danger of the drugs C.F. was exposed to and administered the antidote himself.
Given that this highly prejudicial evidence was essential to establishing both the cause of death and the requisite criminal intent for the most serious charge, the Court concluded that the error’s probable impact undermined confidence in that specific conviction.
Conclusion and Ramifications
The Court of Appeals affirmed Fischer’s convictions for the two remaining level 6 felony neglect charges (which were supported by evidence of drug possession in the home while other dependents were present) and his drug possession convictions. However, the conviction for neglect of a dependent resulting in death (level 1 felony) was reversed. The case is remanded back to the trial court for a new trial solely on that charge.