Background

• Officers observed a parked car blocking a sidewalk with a strong odor of burnt marijuana when they approached the vehicle.
• Griffin and James Douglas were the two occupants; a blunt containing marijuana was found in the center console behind the stick shift, visible without moving anything.
• Both occupants claimed they did not own the blunt.
• Griffin was charged with possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor, and the bench trial resulted in a guilty verdict with 180 days in jail, most suspended as probation.
• The issue is whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Griffin knowingly or intentionally possessed marijuana, either actually or constructively.
• Constructive possession requires knowledge and the capability to maintain dominion over the contraband; Griffin argues lack of knowledge/intent; the State relies on proximity, odor, and Griffin’s reach to show knowledge and control.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Holmes v. State, 785 N.E.2d 658 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (constructive possession framework)
• Grim v. State, 797 N.E.2d 825 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (requirement to show ability to reduce to possession and knowledge of presence)
• Richardson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (non-exclusive premises require additional circumstances to show knowledge and control)
• Gray v. State, 944 N.E.2d 527 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (distinguishing where occupant near contraband not shown to know or control it)
• Perez v. State, 872 N.E.2d 208 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (standard for sufficiency of evidence on appeal)