Gray v. State
957 N.E.2d 171, 2011 Ind. LEXIS 1014, 2011 WL 5865244 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In cases of non-exclusive possession of premises, a conviction for constructive possession of contraband requires proof of both the capability and the intent to maintain dominion and control, where intent can be inferred from additional circumstances such as the contraband being in plain view.
Facts:
- On September 7, 2008, police officers Robert Pylant and Jason Clegg arrived at Lisa Gray’s apartment to investigate a report of marijuana dealing.
- Gray answered the door and stepped out onto the porch to speak with the officers for approximately five minutes.
- Gray informed the officers that her son, D.H., and two of his friends were inside the apartment.
- Gray consented to a search of her apartment.
- Upon entering, officers found two fourteen-year-old boys in the living room.
- Officers discovered a small bag of marijuana on the floor under a coffee table, approximately eight to ten feet from the front door, which they described as being in 'plain view'.
- Gray and the two boys present denied ownership of the marijuana.
- Gray's son, D.H., was not in the apartment when the officers first entered but arrived later during the investigation.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Lisa Gray with possessing marijuana as a class A misdemeanor.
- The case was tried in a bench trial in the Vanderburgh Superior Court.
- At the close of the State's case, Gray moved for a judgment on the evidence, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court found Gray guilty and imposed a sentence.
- Gray appealed her conviction to the Indiana Court of Appeals, arguing the evidence was insufficient.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted the State's petition to transfer, thereby vacating the Court of Appeals' opinion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession of marijuana when the defendant has a non-exclusive possessory interest in the premises, and the marijuana is found in plain view in a common area where other individuals were also present?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepard, C.J.
Yes, the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession. A conviction for constructive possession requires proof that the defendant had both the capability and intent to exercise dominion and control over the contraband. Gray’s possessory interest in her apartment establishes her capability to control the marijuana. While her possession of the premises was non-exclusive, the requisite intent to control the marijuana can be inferred from 'additional circumstances.' In this case, the additional circumstances included the marijuana's location in plain view and its proximity to where Gray would have been just before she answered the door. The trial court was entitled to disbelieve the testimony of Gray and her son, who claimed the marijuana belonged to the son, and instead credit the officers' testimony that the son was not even present when they first entered. This credibility determination, coupled with the evidence of the marijuana's plain view location, was sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the legal standard for constructive possession in Indiana, particularly in common scenarios involving non-exclusive control over premises. It clarifies that contraband in 'plain view' is a powerful 'additional circumstance' that can satisfy the intent prong of the constructive possession test. The case also underscores the significant deference appellate courts give to a trial court's credibility determinations, illustrating that when testimony conflicts, the trial judge's assessment of who is telling the truth is often decisive. This precedent makes it easier for prosecutors to secure convictions in shared living situations where contraband is not hidden.
