Lamont Perkins v. State of Indiana, 57 N.E.3d 861

Perkins, a resident of the Duvall Center (a locked Marion County community corrections facility), was searched after returning from an authorized pass; officers found two syringe needles in a Newport cigarette pack among his belongings.
Upon discovery, Perkins grabbed clothing, forced open the exit door, fled, discarded extra clothing, and was apprehended; officers later found a bundle of cigarettes on him and a bottle cap with heroin residue inside the cigarette pack.
Field test of the bottle-cap residue was positive for heroin; it is against facility rules to possess syringes, cigarettes, or narcotics.
Perkins was charged with possession of a narcotic (Level 5), escape (Level 5), and possession of paraphernalia with a prior conviction (Level 6); tried by bench trial and convicted on all counts.
On appeal Perkins challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence for the paraphernalia conviction, arguing the State failed to prove intent to use the needles for injecting a controlled substance (no track marks, no heroin on needles, and insufficient heroin amount or availability).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency to prove intent to use syringes as paraphernalia	State: circumstantial evidence (needles + heroin residue in same pack + flight/denial) supports inference of intent	Perkins: no direct proof of intent—no track marks, no heroin on needles, amount may be unusable, and no evidence heroin was available in facility	Affirmed: intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence; residue in same container as needles, possession of instruments, and flight/denial suffice
Whether any usable amount of controlled substance is required	State: statute requires identifiable amount; traces/residue suffice to show connection to paraphernalia	Perkins: amount was too small to be used for injection	Held: amount or usability is not an element; any identifiable residue can be probative of intended use
Whether absence of drug on needles defeats inference of intent	State: co-location of needles and heroin residue permits inference the needles were intended for injection	Perkins: lack of heroin on needles shows no intent to inject	Held: not required that drug be on or in the needle; co-possession and other circumstantial evidence suffice to prove intent

Thang v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1256 (Ind. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review and reasonable inferences)
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (conviction may rest on reasonable inferences)
Cooper v. State, 357 N.E.2d 260 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976) (co-possession of syringes and a bottle cap with heroin residue supported conviction; amount in syringe not required)
Sluder v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (reversal where syringe lacked needle and no other evidence of intent such as track marks or drugs)
Trigg v. State, 725 N.E.2d 446 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (residue-encrusted pipe and evasive behavior supported inference of intent to use)
McConnell v. State, 540 N.E.2d 100 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (residue in a smoking pipe sufficient for jury to infer intended use)