95 N.E.3d 169
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Nov. 20, 2016, Lafayette police stopped a vehicle; passenger Gary Yoakum made furtive movements, refused orders to stay in the car, and was removed.
- Officers found a green/brown leafy substance identified in testimony as “spice” (synthetic marijuana) scattered in the passenger area, spice on Yoakum’s pants, a ripped baggie, and a glass pipe that field-tested positive for methamphetamine.
- The State charged Yoakum with Class A misdemeanor possession of a synthetic drug or synthetic drug lookalike substance and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia; a jury convicted him on both counts.
- Yoakum argued at trial (and on appeal) that the drugs belonged to the driver, not him, and challenged the statutory definition of "synthetic drug lookalike substance" as unconstitutionally vague.
- The trial court sentenced Yoakum to concurrent terms: 365 days (Class A) and 60 days (Class C). He appealed challenging vagueness, sufficiency of evidence, and sentence appropriateness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Vagueness of the synthetic drug lookalike definition | Statute is constitutional; Yoakum failed to preserve challenge and definition applied plainly here | Definition (IC 35-31.5-2-321.5) is vague, invites arbitrary enforcement, lacks notice | Waived for failure to move to dismiss; even on merits statute is not void for vagueness as applied to these facts |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence that substance was a synthetic drug lookalike | Officer testimony and circumstantial evidence (appearance, smell, packaging, baggie, and Yoakum’s proximity) sufficed without chemical analysis | No chemical testing; officer testimony insufficient to identify substance | Evidence sufficient: experienced officers’ testimony and circumstantial evidence supported conviction |
| 3. Appropriateness of sentence | One-year cap for Class A and 60 days for Class C are within statutory limits; Yoakum’s record justifies sentence | Maximum sentence is inappropriate for a non‑egregious possession of a small amount | Sentence not inappropriate given substantial criminal history and repeated probation revocations |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standard for de novo review of constitutional questions)
- Brown v. State, 868 N.E.2d 464 (Ind. 2007) (vagueness doctrine and two-prong test: notice and arbitrary enforcement)
- Klein v. State, 698 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. 1998) (void-for-vagueness principles)
- City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) (U.S. Supreme Court discussion of vagueness and arbitrary enforcement)
- Healthscript, Inc. v. State, 770 N.E.2d 810 (Ind. 2002) (vagueness analysis)
- Payne v. State, 484 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. 1985) (preservation rule for constitutional challenges)
- Baumgartner v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (vagueness must be shown as applied to the case)
- Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2009) (sufficiency review standard)
- Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (identity of contraband may be proved without chemical analysis)
- Helton v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind. 2009) (circumstantial and witness testimony can establish drug identity)
- Vasquez v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1214 (Ind. 2001) (expert/experienced witness testimony permissible to identify drugs)
- Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (deference and scope of Rule 7(B) review)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (burden on defendant to show sentence inappropriate)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (purpose and limits of appellate revision under Rule 7(B))
- Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 2010) (consideration of aggregate penal consequences in Rule 7(B) review)