Gray v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 393
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- On September 7, 2008, Evansville Police Department officers were dispatched to Gray's residence to investigate a marijuana-dealing complaint and Gray signed a written consent to search.
- During the search, officers observed a small bag of what appeared to be marijuana in plain view under the coffee table in the living room where two juvenile males were seated.
- Gray and the juveniles denied ownership of the marijuana.
- A bench trial was held in May 2010; Gray moved for judgment on the evidence arguing lack of exclusive control over the area and proximity to the marijuana, but the motion was denied.
- Gray was convicted of possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor; on appeal, the issue is whether the evidence supports constructive possession with the premises not being exclusive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved constructively possessing the marijuana given non-exclusive premises. | Gray lacked exclusive control; no proximity or knowledge evidence. | State argued premises ownership sufficed to show capability and proximity showed knowledge. | Insufficient evidence of intent; conviction reversed. |
| Whether additional circumstances supporting intent were present under Gee v. State. | No incriminating statements, flight, or other indicators existed. | Possession of the premises plus plain view enough under certain circumstances. | No substantial circumstances to prove intent; reversal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gee v. State, 810 N.E.2d 338 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (discusses the need for additional circumstances to show intent in non-exclusive premises)
- Henderson v. State, 715 N.E.2d 833 (Ind.1999) (identifies factors for determining knowledge/presence of contraband)
- Wilkerson v. State, 918 N.E.2d 458 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (constructive possession requires intent and capability)
- Chandler v. State, 816 N.E.2d 464 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (supports analysis of possession of contraband in a shared or non-exclusive setting)
- Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268 (Ind.1997) (explains additional circumstances proving intent in non-exclusive possession)
- Davenport v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1302 (Ind.1984) (premises possessory interest can show capability to possess items on premises)