Michael R. Houston v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 543
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Officer Souther observed a car with dark tint leave a bar then stop a later time; Houston, the driver, lacked a valid license and the plate did not match the car.
- An inventory search during towing yielded a baggie of white, rock-like substance (cocaine) between the passenger seat and center console; field test was positive.
- A vial containing yellow liquid was found in the center console; Houston claimed it contained urine, later said to be urine by Green and not tested.
- Houston testified he denied knowledge of the cocaine; Green and Hood testified officers did not ask about knowledge of cocaine.
- The State charged Houston with possession of cocaine as a Class D felony; a jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to three years with part suspended.
- The appellate court reversed the conviction on sufficiency grounds, finding no evidence of intent to maintain dominion and control over the cocaine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proves possession beyond reasonable doubt | Houston argues he had no actual possession and no knowledge. | Houston contends there was no evidence of intent or knowledge; not the owner of the car. | Conviction reversed for lack of proof on intent premis |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. State, 902 N.E.2d 280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (constructive possession requires intent and capability to exercise dominion over drugs)
- Wilkerson v. State, 918 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (intensity of inference for intent when possession of premises is not exclusive)
- Gee v. State, 810 N.E.2d 338 (Ind. 2004) (circumstances indicating knowledge of contraband (inference factors))
- Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (premises-based possession may be proven by multiple factors when not exclusive)
- Henderson v. State, 715 N.E.2d 833 (Ind. 1999) (definition of actual possession)