A.M. v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1446
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- A.M. was found at Greencastle Middle School with a pipe he said was used to smoke spice.
- School officials obtained a written statement from A.M. and notified police; petition alleged possession of paraphernalia to smoke marijuana.
- A.M. moved to suppress school-official statements and the written statement; the juvenile court suppressed the officer’s statement but not the school statements.
- Officer Modlin testified that the pipe likely contained marijuana residue by smell, but admitted odor distinction between marijuana and spice is unreliable.
- No drug testing was performed to confirm the substance; the petition charged intent to use the pipe for marijuana, not spice.
- The juvenile court found delinquency for possession of paraphernalia; the appellate court reversed due to insufficient evidence of intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A.M. intended to smoke marijuana? | A.M. argues evidence showed no intent to use for marijuana. | State contends residue and statements imply intent to smoke marijuana. | No substantial evidence of marijuana intent; reversed. |
| Can the evidence of spice as the last used substance sustain the offense? | State argues spice could reflect intended synthetic cannabinoid use. | No доказе that spice fell within controlled-substance definition at the time. | Insufficient to prove intent to smoke a controlled substance; variance concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkinson v. State, 810 N.E.2d 1190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (requires proof of substance identity for paraphernalia intent)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for sufficiency of evidence; do not reweigh credibility)
- Bradley v. State, 287 N.E.2d 759 (Ind. Ct. App. 1972) (suspicion alone not enough to sustain a verdict)
- Broude v. State, 956 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (material variance requires reversal when charging and proof diverge)
- Easton v. State, 228 N.E.2d 6 (Ind. 1967) (evidence must exclude reasonable inferences of guilt)