Gee v. State
2004 Ind. LEXIS 535, 810 N.E.2d 338, 2004 WL 1352850 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant has non-exclusive possession of the premises where contraband is found, the state must present 'additional circumstances' beyond mere residency to prove the intent element of constructive possession, such as the contraband being in plain view or commingled with the defendant's personal property.
Facts:
- Gary D. Gee and his cousin, Lewis R. Gee, jointly leased a residence on Mutz Court, though Gary Gee only stayed there occasionally.
- Police discovered cocaine residue and mail addressed to Lewis R. Gee in a trash bag left on the curb outside the residence.
- During a subsequent search of the home's interior, police discovered over 126 grams of cocaine, over 273 grams of marijuana, $5,000 in cash, and digital scales.
- The drugs and paraphernalia were found hidden inside closed containers—a cigar box, a tin can, and a paint bucket—which were located inside cabinets in the basement laundry room.
- Gary Gee's personal documents, including receipts, a social security card, and a birth certificate, were located in the kitchen and an upstairs bedroom, separate from where any contraband was found.
- Photographs in which Gary Gee appeared with his cousin and others were found in the same cabinet as the contraband, but ownership of the photographs was not established.
- The $5,000 in cash was discovered in a lockbox under a bed in the bedroom occupied by Lewis R. Gee.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary D. Gee was charged with several drug-related felonies in the Marion Superior Court, a trial court.
- Following a jury trial, Gee was convicted of dealing in cocaine, possession of cocaine, dealing in marijuana, and possession of marijuana.
- Gee, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the Indiana Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in a Memorandum Decision.
- Gee then petitioned to transfer the case to the Indiana Supreme Court, the state's highest court, which granted the petition to hear the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a non-exclusive possession case, are there sufficient 'additional circumstances' to prove a defendant's intent to maintain dominion and control over contraband when the contraband is hidden from view inside various containers and not found in proximity to the defendant's personal belongings?
Opinions:
Majority - Rucker, J.
No. When possession of the premises is non-exclusive, the State fails to prove the intent required for constructive possession without 'additional circumstances' connecting the defendant to the contraband. Here, the State did not meet its burden because the drugs were not in plain view, but were hidden inside multiple closed containers within a cabinet. Furthermore, the contraband was not mingled with Gee's personal property, as his belongings were found in different areas of the house. The mere presence of photographs that included Gee near the contraband is insufficient to establish ownership or knowledge, especially when ownership of the photos was unknown. The location in a basement laundry room, unlike a high-traffic area like a kitchen, does not support an inference that Gee would have known of the hidden items. Therefore, the evidence was insufficient to prove that Gee had the intent to maintain dominion and control over the drugs.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and reinforces the 'additional circumstances' requirement for proving the intent element of constructive possession in non-exclusive occupancy situations. The court's detailed analysis sets a high bar for the prosecution, emphasizing that a defendant's connection to hidden contraband cannot be based on mere inference from their access to the property. By rejecting the State's arguments regarding 'plain view' for hidden items and 'proximity' for items with unproven ownership, the decision provides strong precedent for defendants in similar circumstances. It effectively narrows the scope of constructive possession, requiring more concrete, direct evidence to link a co-tenant to illegal items found in a shared dwelling.
