Arthur Bowden appeals his convictions for trafficking in methamphetamine and for possessing methamphetamine, following a jury trial. He argues that the court erred in i denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered in a vehicle, ii denying his motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel, iii admitting a confession he made to police, iv admitting statements made by an absent co-defendant to an informant, and v denying his motion for mistrial based on the informant’s testimony that the informant knew Bowden’s vehicle from prior deals. Discerning no error, we affirm. Construed in favor of the verdict, Short v. State ,1 the evidence shows that to obtain leniency in another criminal matter, an informant agreed with police that he would set up a drug deal with his drug-source contacts Shawn Kilgore and Arthur Bowden so that police could snare these two individuals for selling a large amount of methamphetamine. The informant called Kilgore, who agreed to contact Bowden known to the informant and Kilgore also as “the queer” to obtain the methamphetamine. Kilgore called back, claiming Bowden had agreed to sell methamphetamine to the informant, and a deal was struck for four ounces of methamphetamine at a price of $5,200. The informant told police that Bowden owned and often drove a silver Mercedes coupe two-door with a blue aluminum dealer’s tag.
The informant and Kilgore arranged for the transaction to take place in a local parking lot. After photocopying the bills, police gave the informant $5,200 in cash, wired him for audio, and set up a visual surveillance of the parking lot, which included some non-uniformed officers in unmarked cars in the parking lot and a uniformed officer in a marked police car located nearby. Police confirmed that a silver Mercedes coupe with a dealer tag was located at a drinking establishment a few miles away, which Kilgore and Bowden frequented.