Brian Keil v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 56A05-1612-CR-2930

On May 3, 2016, Deputy Rowe stopped at a convenience store, observed Brian Keil and Samuel Bass exhibiting signs consistent with heroin use, and ran the vehicle’s plate.
Bass drove the vehicle; a K-9 alerted to the passenger side. Bass told officers a needle formerly in the passenger door was moved to the center console and said the syringe belonged to Keil.
Officers found a syringe, a used spoon, and a knotted piece of baggie in the center console; Keil had a lighter and a shoelace tied in a loop on his person.
Keil was charged with two counts of unlawful possession of a syringe (one with a prior conviction as a level 5 felony, one as a level 6 felony) and two counts of possession of paraphernalia (class C misdemeanors). He was convicted on three counts by jury and pleaded guilty to the remaining count; aggregate sentence of five years.
During trial a juror disclosed knowing Bass but stated she could be impartial; the court kept the juror. The court admitted a portion of a body‑camera recording over Keil’s later objection to publication. Keil appealed raising juror bias, admission of the video, and sufficiency of the evidence.

Issue	State's Argument	Keil's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by not removing a juror who knew a witness	Juror’s acquaintance was minimal; trial court discretion; Keil did not move to remove	Juror’s prior acquaintance and suspicion of witness showed partiality; fundamental error	No error; trial court didn’t abuse discretion and Keil waived by not objecting at trial
Whether admission/publication of body‑cam recording was improper	Admission was proper; Keil waived contemporaneous objection; any error harmless given Deputy Rowe’s testimony	Admission (publication) violated motion in limine and was unfairly prejudicial; fundamental error	Waived; even if erroneous, admission was not substantially prejudicial and was harmless
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove possession of syringe and paraphernalia with intent	Bass’s statements, dog alert, items in console, and items on Keil’s person support constructive possession and intent	Insufficient proof Keil possessed the syringe or intended to use paraphernalia to inject drugs	Evidence sufficient: jury could infer knowledge, dominion, and intent; convictions affirmed

May v. State, 716 N.E.2d 419 (Ind. 1999) (trial court has broad discretion to assess juror impartiality)
Harris v. State, 659 N.E.2d 522 (Ind. 1995) (deference to trial court’s juror‑bias determinations)
Barnes v. State, 693 N.E.2d 520 (Ind. 1998) (failure to challenge juror at trial waives appellate challenge)
Bradley v. State, 54 N.E.3d 996 (Ind. 2016) (trial court has broad discretion on admissibility of evidence)
Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011) (harmless‑error standard for evidentiary rulings)
Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve evidentiary issues unless fundamental error)
Cherry v. State, 971 N.E.2d 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (possession of syringe may be inferred as intent to inject heroin)
K.F. v. State, 961 N.E.2d 501 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (constructive possession requires knowledge plus capability and intent to control contraband)
Washington v. State, 902 N.E.2d 280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (possession can be actual or constructive)