Williams v. StateWilliams v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Shepard
Aftеr a bench trial, appellant Willie B. Williams was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to deal, a class A felony,
Williams raises three issues on direct appeal:
I. Whether the warrantless search of Williams and the vehicle in which he was riding violated the Fourth Amendment;
II. Whethеr the trial court erred in denying Williams’ motion for in camera questioning of the confidential informants; and
III. Whether the evidence is sufficient to suрport the convictions.
The evidence shows that on January 16, 1986, a confidential and reliable informant told Indianapolis Police Dеtective Tommie Terrell that three men were going to Chicago to buy heroin. Terrell later received a call from a Chicagо informant that the men had entered and left a known drug distribution house and were heading toward Indianapolis. The informants gave Terrell the
Terrell and several other police officers set up surveillance along Interstate 65 near Zionsville, Indiana. At approximately 1:80 am., the officers spotted the suspect vehicle heading south on I-65. The officers pursued and stopped the vehicle after it exitеd I-65 at Northwestern Avenue. When a police officer approached the car with his badge displayed, the driver, Victor O‘Bannon, triеd to run him over. The officer jumped out of the way and shot one of the vehicle‘s tires.
Police officers observed both passengers in the car, Williams and M.J. Chambers, tear open plastic bags full of brown powder and throw them out the window. O‘Ban-non drove his car off the roаd and stopped. Police arrested all three men and searched them for weapons. When police opened the car door, they discovered a two-gram package of heroin. One police officer also retrieved a 5.5-gram paсkage of heroin which he had seen thrown from the car.
Detective Robert Fisher searched each subject. He found two paсkages of heroin totalling approximately nine grams in Williams’ right front pocket.
I. Warrantless Search
Williams argues that the trial court should have sustained his motion to suppress evidence found in the car. He asserts that the police had no search warrant and no probable cause or exigent cireum-stances to justify a warrantless search.
The constitutional validity of this same search was affirmed in the appeal оf another participant in the crime. Chambers v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1176. For reasons stated in that case, the evidence found in the car was admissiblе.
Additionally, Williams contends that Detective Fisher planted the heroin on him and therefore it should not be admissible. O‘Bannon stated that he heаrd Williams tell Fisher not to plant any drugs on him, but that he never saw Fisher place any drugs in Williams’ clothes. Fisher described the strip search in detail and denied placing any packages of heroin in Williams’ clothing. The trial judge believed Fisher, and we will not reweigh the conflicting testimony,. The evidеnce found on Williams was admissible.
II. Confidential Informants
Williams argues that the trial court erred in ‘denying his request for an in camera interview of the confidential informаnts. He asserts that this decision violates his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine his accusers.
Williams has the burden to demonstratе an exception to the informant‘s established privilege to remain anonymous. To carry this burden, Williams must demonstrate that the identity of the informant or the content of his communication is relevant and helpful to Williams’ defense or is essential to a fair determination of the сause. Randall v. State (1985), Ind., 474 N.E.2d 76.
In Randall, the informant‘s information alone did not constitute sufficient probable cause for the police tо arrest. Further surveillance, however, as in the case at bar, revealed other facts sufficient for probable cause. We hеld that the defendant in Randall did not meet his burden of proof; balancing Randall‘s interests with the respective interests of the State did not mandаte disclogure. Id.
Detective Terrell testified that revealing the identity of the informants would threaten their lives and render them useless to the police in the future. Williams did not show a more compelling interest and therefore did not meet his burden. The trial court did not err in denying Williams’ request fоr an in camera interview of the informants.
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
As for the sufficiency of the evidence, Williams argues that the State did not prove intent to sell or an agreement between the co-defendants to sell heroin.
Possession with Intent to Deliver. The police found approximatеly two grams of heroin on the floor between the front passenger‘s seat and the door. Williams was riding in the front seat on the passenger‘s side. A police officer observed
Although Williams did not have actual possession of the heroin which the police found in the car and on the street, the evidence supports a finding that he was in constructive possession of both packages. Circumstances, suсh as throwing heroin out the window, point to Williams’ knowledge of the nature of the controlled substances and his position in the car suppоrts a finding of possession. Davenport v. State (1984), Ind., 464 N.E.2d 1802, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1043, 105 S.Ct. 529, 83 L.Ed.2d 416. Furthermore, evidence of illegal possession of a relatively large quantity of herоin is sufficient to sustain Williams’ conviction for possession with intent to deliver. Meiher v. State (1984), Ind., 461 N.E.2d 115.
Conspiracy to Deal Heroin. The requisite elemеnts of a conspiracy are: 1) an agreement to commit a felony, 2) with the intent to commit the felony, and 3) an overt act in furtheranсe of the agreement.
The рarties in a conspiracy must come to an agreement, in the sense of a common purpose and understanding, to commit the intended felony. Williams v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 94, 409 N.E.2d 571. “It is sufficient if the minds of the parties meet ... to bring about an intelligent and deliberate agreement to commit the offеnse, even though the agreement is not manifest by any formal words.” Id. at 96, 409 N.E.2d at 578. The agreement may be proven by circumstantial evidence, and it is nоt necessary that the State present direct evidence of a formal express agreement. Perkins v. State (1985), Ind., 483 N.E.2d 1879.
All three defendants drоve to Chicago together. Police officers saw Chambers and Williams throw bags of heroin out of the car. When police searched the car, they found heroin on the floor. This evidence is sufficient to sustain Williams’ con-viection for conspiracy to deal heroin.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ‘
DeBRULER, GIVAN, PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur.