Chandler v. State
2004 WL 2348304, 2004 Ind. App. LEXIS 2054, 816 N. E. 2d 464 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To prove constructive possession of contraband in a non-exclusive premises, the State must show additional circumstances beyond the defendant's mere presence or connection to the location that indicate the defendant's intent and capability to maintain dominion and control over the contraband. Circumstantial evidence, such as continuous police surveillance, can be sufficient to prove a defendant possessed drugs within a school zone even if apprehended outside of it.
Facts:
- On November 21, 2002, police officers had a search warrant for a house at 216 Alford Street and for Kacey M. Chandler's person.
- The house at 216 Alford Street was located 496 feet from Beiger School, placing it within a statutorily defined school zone.
- Officers observed Chandler enter the house, and shortly thereafter, leave with a female companion, with Chandler driving the car.
- Chandler told an officer that the house belonged to his aunt.
- Officers, knowing Chandler's license was suspended, followed him continuously from the moment he left the house until they initiated a traffic stop.
- Upon stopping and arresting Chandler for driving with a suspended license, a search of his person revealed a small baggie of cocaine in his rear pocket.
- A subsequent search of the Alford Street house uncovered marijuana in the middle bedroom and the living room.
- During the search of the house, officers found some of Chandler's personal papers, including a car title, registration, and letters addressed to him, in a kitchen drawer and a bond receipt in a back bedroom.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Indiana charged Kacey M. Chandler in a state trial court with possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, and maintaining a common nuisance.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict finding Chandler guilty on all counts.
- Chandler, as the appellant, appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, with the State of Indiana as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant constructively possess contraband found in a residence where their control is non-exclusive, when the only evidence linking them is their recent presence and personal papers found in different rooms from where the contraband was located?
Opinions:
Majority - May, Judge.
No, a defendant does not constructively possess contraband found in a residence where control is non-exclusive without additional circumstances proving intent and capability to exercise dominion and control. For the cocaine possession charge, the evidence was sufficient. The jury could reasonably infer from the continuous police surveillance that Chandler possessed the cocaine found in his pocket while he was at the house, which was located within 1000 feet of a school. For the marijuana possession charge, the evidence was insufficient. The State failed to prove Chandler had exclusive control over the premises, as he stated it was his aunt's house. In cases of non-exclusive control, the State must prove additional circumstances to establish constructive possession. The court found no such circumstances: Chandler made no incriminating statements, did not flee, the contraband was not in plain view, and his personal items were found in different rooms from the marijuana. Therefore, the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chandler constructively possessed the marijuana. Consequently, the conviction for maintaining a common nuisance, which depended on his control of the drugs on the premises, must also be reversed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the evidentiary requirements for proving two distinct types of possession offenses. For school-zone enhancements, it affirms that the location of the criminal act (possession within the zone), not the location of apprehension, is the critical element, and this can be established through strong circumstantial evidence. More significantly, the opinion reinforces the high bar for proving constructive possession in non-exclusive premises, providing a clear application of the 'additional circumstances' test. It serves as a strong precedent against convicting individuals based on mere association with a location where contraband is found, thereby protecting individuals from liability in shared living situations without more specific, incriminating evidence.
