Gerald Clemons v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 533
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Police responded to a domestic disturbance at Clemons’s apartment in early March 2012 and heard screaming, banging, and a female asking for help.
- Officers observed blood splatter in the hallway and throughout the apartment; they found Kayla Conner severely injured and intoxicated in the bathtub and a bloody kitchen knife under the sink.
- Clemons opened the apartment door slightly, was shirtless, sweating, and had blood on his pants and hands; he initially refused officers’ commands and was tasered and handcuffed.
- At the arrest processing center a packet in Clemons’s sock tested positive for 0.6963 grams of cocaine; he was charged with battery, possession of cocaine, and resisting law enforcement.
- The trial court granted a directed verdict on battery and resisting; the jury convicted Clemons of possession of cocaine; the trial court reduced the conviction to a misdemeanor for sentencing purposes and imposed a suspended one-year term with probation and community service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support possession of cocaine conviction and whether necessity defense negates guilt | State: Clemons forfeited necessity defense and, in any event, the State disproved at least one element of necessity beyond a reasonable doubt | Clemons: He possessed the cocaine to prevent Conner from using it; necessity justified possession as the lesser of two evils with no adequate alternative | Affirmed: Court finds either forfeiture or, if tried by implied consent, that a reasonable jury could conclude the State disproved the necessity defense; conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
- Dozier v. State, 709 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (elements required to establish necessity defense)
- Toops v. State, 643 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (authority cited for necessity elements)
- Melendez v. State, 511 N.E.2d 454 (Ind. 1987) (affirmative defenses admit elements but assert excusing circumstances)
- Custer v. Plan Comm’n of City of Garrett, 699 N.E.2d 793 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (Trial Rule 15(B) treating issues tried by implied consent as raised in the pleadings)