Alfred S. Sanders v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
84A01-1608-CR-1935
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 27, 2017Background
- At ~6:00 a.m. police executed a search warrant nearby; detectives observed a single-cab truck with Jessica Mahalek (driver) and Alfred Sanders (passenger) behave furtively and followed it to a house on Washington Street.
- When officers approached, Mahalek exited slowly while Sanders quickly walked to the rear bumpers of two parked cars; officers detained and questioned Sanders.
- Sanders consented to a search of the truck; detectives found in the truck a backpack (partially behind the passenger seat) with an open compartment containing a digital scale with methamphetamine residue.
- About 10 feet from where Sanders had stopped, officers found a zippered pouch with eleven loose hydrocodone pills and two cell phones; despite heavy dew, the pouch and phones were dry on top.
- Sanders denied ownership of the items but admitted he was driving around looking for a “smoke sack” (meth); he could unlock the found phones; Mahalek gave inconsistent statements about ownership of the scale and pills.
- Sanders was convicted of Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance, and Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance; he appealed asserting insufficient evidence of constructive possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sanders) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Sanders constructively possessed the digital scale and hydrocodone pouch | State: Sanders had knowledge and capability to control the items—admitted looking for meth, backpack with open compartment visible from passenger seat, money on his person, ability to unlock phones, proximity to dry pouch and phones, Mahalek’s inconsistent statements | Sanders: evidence did not establish intent/knowledge required for constructive possession (no exclusive control; items not directly on his person) | Court: Evidence sufficient to infer knowledge and intent; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171 (Ind. 2011) (review standard for sufficiency of the evidence and list of circumstances to infer constructive possession)
- Henderson v. State, 715 N.E.2d 833 (Ind. 1999) (elements of constructive possession; need additional circumstances when dominion is non-exclusive)
- Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268 (Ind. 1997) (capability to maintain dominion can be shown by ability to reduce contraband to personal possession)
- Womack v. State, 738 N.E.2d 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (location and condition of discarded contraband can support an inference that defendant recently dropped it and thus had possession)