Tommie Payne, IV v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
71A03-1604-CR-780
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 16, 2016Background
- At ~3:20 a.m. on Aug. 23, 2015, Officer Wiegand stopped a vehicle after observing traffic violations and occupants yelling. Payne was a rear passenger.
- Officer smelled burnt marijuana upon approaching the vehicle; Payne and another passenger made furtive movements and Payne ducked toward the left.
- Officers removed occupants; a bag containing heroin was found in the grass near another passenger who fled. Payne was handcuffed at the scene.
- During a search, police recovered multiple bags of marijuana and a scale in the center console, more bags and a scale between Payne’s seat and the rear door, and a bag of marijuana in plain view on the floor behind the driver.
- Payne was charged with and convicted after a bench trial of Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana; the court suspended a 60-day sentence and imposed 180 days of probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove knowing possession of marijuana | State: constructive possession supported by marijuana being in plain view near Payne, his furtive movements, odor of marijuana, and proximity to contraband | Payne: smell of marijuana alone is insufficient; prior cases show odor without drugs does not prove possession | Affirmed: evidence (plain-view marijuana near Payne, furtive gestures, odor, proximity) sufficient to support constructive possession conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. 2005) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. 2014) (appellate review must not reweigh evidence)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (State need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
- Mack v. State, 23 N.E.3d 742 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (possession may be actual or constructive)
- Brent v. State, 957 N.E.2d 648 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (odor alone insufficient when no drugs found)
- Bradshaw v. State, 818 N.E.2d 59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (actual possession as direct physical control)
- Holmes v. State, 785 N.E.2d 658 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (factors for constructive possession inference)
- Edmond v. State, 951 N.E.2d 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (odor of marijuana may linger and be considered in context)