Gray v. State
2011 Ind. LEXIS 1014
| Ind. | 2011Background
- Gray was found guilty of possessing marijuana as a class A misdemeanor after a bench trial.
- Police entered Gray’s apartment with her consent, seeing a bag of marijuana in plain view under a coffee table.
- Two fourteen-year-old boys were found in the living room; Gray and D.H. claimed the marijuana belonged to D.H.
- D.H. testified he was present and that he threw the marijuana under the table, while officers testified he was not present.
- Gray challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal; the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court granted transfer to reinstate the conviction.
- The Supreme Court reviews whether the evidence support a conviction based on constructive possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is sufficient evidence of constructive possession | State contends Gray had dominion and control via possessory interest and proximity to the marijuana. | Gray argues lack of exclusive possession and insufficient knowledge of the marijuana’s presence and nature. | Yes; sufficient evidence supports constructive possession. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. State, 715 N.E.2d 833 (Ind. 1999) (actual vs. constructive possession framework)
- Gee v. State, 810 N.E.2d 338 (Ind. 2004) (possessory interest plus additional circumstances to prove knowledge)
- Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268 (Ind.) (proximate possession and immediate incriminating character in plain view)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904 (Ind. 2005) (favorable view of evidence supporting conviction)
- Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268 (Ind. 2000) (proof beyond reasonable doubt requires substantial probative evidence)