Tony Sluder v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 581
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- In August 2012 Officer Love stopped Tony Sluder for an outstanding warrant, arrested him, and conducted a pat-down that found nothing.
- Officer Angela Owens later conducted a second search before transport and discovered a syringe in Sluder’s back pocket; no drugs were found.
- Sluder and his sister testified the item was a medicine dropper used to feed puppies (and given by his sister), not a drug syringe; the dropper admitted into evidence was identical but provenance was disputed.
- Owens could not recall whether the syringe had a needle; she placed the seized item in a sharps container and no photographs were taken before disposal.
- The State charged Sluder with Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia (intent to introduce a controlled substance into the body).
- At a bench trial the court discredited Sluder and his sister and convicted him; on appeal the Court of Appeals reversed for insufficient evidence of intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Sluder intended to use the seized syringe to introduce a controlled substance into his body | The syringe’s presence on Sluder and his inconsistent statements show consciousness of guilt and support an inference of intent | The State presented no circumstantial evidence of intent (no track marks, no drugs, no residue, alternative innocent explanation) | Reversed — insufficient evidence to prove intent required by the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. 2012) (standard for sufficiency review focusing on evidence most favorable to the judgment)
- Dabner v. State, 279 N.E.2d 797 (Ind. 1972) (circumstantial evidence such as track marks can support intent to inject)
- Stevens v. State, 275 N.E.2d 12 (Ind. 1971) (admission of past drug use plus needle marks supports intent)
- Von Hauger v. State, 266 N.E.2d 197 (Ind. 1971) (prior convictions for drug use may support intent)
- Trigg v. State, 725 N.E.2d 446 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (paraphernalia with drug residue where defendant sat supported intent to use)
- McConnell v. State, 540 N.E.2d 100 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (expert testimony of drug residue on paraphernalia can establish intent)
- Taylor v. State, 267 N.E.2d 383 (Ind. 1971) (mere possession of instruments is insufficient absent other evidence of intent)
- Bradley v. State, 287 N.E.2d 759 (Ind. Ct. App. 1972) (flight or concealment alone does not prove intent)