Michael Thomas v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
91A02-1704-CR-872
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 2, 2018Background
- On May 3, 2016, Brookston police stopped a vehicle; the driver (Lawrence) fled and a passenger (Thomas) was later found crouched in a nearby homeowner’s fenced backyard.
- Officers found two bags in the yard: one with marijuana and another with 21 small baggies of a white, rocky substance that tested as ~17 grams of cocaine. Bags appeared "fresh."
- Thomas was arrested at the yard; a pat-down found $11 in his pocket and jail processing revealed $800 hidden in his right shoe.
- While incarcerated, Thomas made a recorded jail call in which he made coded statements about amounts of cocaine and money and suggested Lawrence directed him to carry the drugs.
- Lawrence testified at trial that he and Thomas had been selling cocaine together and that Thomas had possessed the cocaine at the traffic stop.
- A jury convicted Thomas of dealing in cocaine (Level 2 felony) and possession of marijuana (Class B misdemeanor); Thomas appealed only the sufficiency of the evidence for the dealing conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Thomas knowingly possessed ≥10g of cocaine with intent to deliver | State: combined direct (Lawrence’s testimony) and circumstantial evidence (drugs found near where Thomas hid; coded jail call; $800 hidden in shoe; flight from police) supports constructive/actual possession and intent to deliver | Thomas: challenges sufficiency, attacks Lawrence’s credibility (incredible dubiosity) and argues circumstantial evidence does not prove knowledge/control/intent | Affirmed: reasonable inferences (possession, knowledge, intent) support conviction; Lawrence’s testimony not so inherently unreliable to invoke incredible dubiosity doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693 (Ind. 2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53 (Ind. 1995) (circumstantial evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
- Griffin v. State, 945 N.E.2d 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (distinguishing actual and constructive possession)
- Thompson v. State, 966 N.E.2d 112 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (knowledge element in constructive possession)
- Ables v. State, 848 N.E.2d 293 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (factors from which knowledge and capability to control contraband may be inferred)
- Smith v. State, 34 N.E.3d 1211 (Ind. 2015) (criteria for applying the incredible dubiosity rule)
- Myers v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1069 (Ind. 2015) (flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt)
- Wilson v. State, 754 N.E.2d 950 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (large sums of cash as circumstantial evidence of intent to deliver)