Raihiem Johnson v. State of Indiana
59 N.E.3d 1071
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On May 18, 2015 Officer Rodriguez stopped a car Johnson was driving for an improperly affixed license plate.
- During the stop Johnson placed his hands down between the driver’s seat and door in a furtive manner; officer observed this while approaching the vehicle.
- A K-9 alerted to the vehicle; officers searched and found heroin wrapped in foil under the driver’s seat and additional heroin in a small black box beneath the front of the driver’s seat.
- A search of Johnson’s person revealed a cut pen with white residue, a piece of a credit card, and foil — items the officer testified are consistent with heroin ingestion and similar to the packaging of the heroin found in the car.
- Johnson was charged with and convicted by a jury of possession of a narcotic drug (Level 6 felony); he appealed arguing insufficient evidence of constructive possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove constructive possession of heroin | State: circumstantial evidence (furtive gestures, proximity under driver’s seat, items on Johnson’s person, and inaccessible location to passenger) supports knowledge and intent to control | Johnson: State failed to show he knew of or had intent to control the heroin (analogizing to Houston where contraband in crevice did not prove knowledge) | Affirmed: jury could reasonably infer Johnson had intent and capability to maintain dominion and control; evidence sufficient to support conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065 (Ind. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Wilkerson v. State, 918 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (elements and factors for constructive possession)
- Gee v. State, 810 N.E.2d 338 (Ind. 2004) (constructive possession requires intent and capability)
- Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (possessory interest in premises can satisfy capability prong)
- Houston v. State, 997 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (insufficient evidence where contraband in passenger-side crevice did not establish driver’s knowledge)
- Carnes v. State, 480 N.E.2d 581 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (nature of place where contraband found can show knowledge)
- Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171 (Ind. 2011) (additional circumstances may be required to infer knowledge when possession of premises is nonexclusive)