Hiram Bankhead v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1701-CR-88
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- On Sept. 11, 2016, Officer Portell stopped a white Chevrolet Tahoe because the temporary plate in the rear window was difficult to read.
- BMV data showed the plate expired March 11, 2016, but the physical plate displayed September 11, 2016; a printed “9” was taped over a “3.”
- Hiram Bankhead was the sole occupant and driver; Officer Portell asked him to exit for safety after observing him move around in the driver’s seat.
- Officer Portell requested and received consent to search the vehicle; Officer Carmack searched the center console and found a pill bottle in plain view.
- The bottle was prescribed to Bankhead’s mother and contained Tramadol (a Schedule IV controlled substance); Bankhead admitted he had been taking the pills and thought it was permissible.
- Bankhead was convicted after a bench trial of Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance and Class C misdemeanor displaying an altered interim plate; he appealed the possession conviction on sufficiency grounds.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Bankhead's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Bankhead knowingly possessed a controlled substance | Evidence (sole occupant, admission he’d been taking the pills, furtive movement, pills in center console near driver) supports constructive/exclusive possession | State failed to prove knowledge or exclusive/constructive possession of the contraband | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to support possession conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. State, 31 N.E.3d 495 (Ind. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review and deference to factfinder)
- Bocanegra v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (consideration of probative evidence and reasonable inferences for sufficiency)
- Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904 (Ind. 2005) (conflicting evidence viewed most favorably to trial court)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (sufficiency need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
- Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53 (Ind. 1995) (same principle on reasonable hypotheses of innocence)
- Whitney v. State, 726 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (driver and sole occupant inference of exclusive possession)
- Holmes v. State, 785 N.E.2d 658 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (exclusive possession permits inference of knowledge and control)
- Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171 (Ind. 2011) (factors supporting constructive possession: incriminating statements, furtive gestures, proximity, plain view)