Martin v. State
1978 Ind. App. LEXIS 818, 372 N. E.2d 1194, 175 Ind. App. 503 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an individual does not have exclusive control over the premises where controlled substances are found, the prosecution must present additional incriminating statements or circumstances to prove the defendant had knowledge of and control over the drugs to sustain a conviction for constructive possession.
Facts:
- Indianapolis police officers executed an authorized search warrant at the apartment residence of Linda and James Martin.
- Upon announcing their presence, officers observed Linda Martin at the door and then heard running inside.
- After entering, officers saw Linda Martin run down a hallway and found her in a bathroom with water running in both the sink and the toilet.
- Officers also discovered a houseguest in the master bathroom near a container with unidentified residue.
- During the search, James Martin arrived at the apartment; officers discovered he was carrying a gun.
- Police found heroin and marijuana hidden in the top drawer of a dresser located in the master bedroom.
- The Martins ordinarily occupied the master bedroom as husband and wife, but claimed a houseguest had been using it for a week.
- Male clothing fitting James Martin was found in the master bedroom, and he admitted to keeping clothes there.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda and James Martin were charged in an Indiana trial court with one count of possession of heroin and one count of possession of marijuana.
- Following a trial, the trier of fact found both Linda and James Martin guilty as charged on both counts.
- Linda and James Martin, as appellants, appealed their convictions to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt. The State of Indiana is 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:
Is a defendant's non-exclusive control of premises where controlled substances are found, without more, sufficient to prove the knowing constructive possession required for a conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, P.J.
No, a defendant's non-exclusive control of premises is insufficient, by itself, to prove knowing constructive possession; additional incriminating circumstances that link the defendant to the contraband are required. For Linda Martin, her furtive behavior of running from police and being found in a bathroom with the water running in both the sink and toilet provided the necessary additional evidence to infer her knowledge of the drugs. Therefore, her conviction is affirmed. For James Martin, however, there were no such additional circumstances. He was not present when the search began, his possession of a gun was not specifically related to drug possession, and his mere joint occupancy of the bedroom with his wife and a houseguest was insufficient to prove he knew the drugs were in the dresser drawer. Therefore, his conviction is reversed.
Concurring - Buchanan, J.
No. While there was sufficient evidence to infer that James Martin had the ability to control the bedroom where the drugs were found, Indiana law requires that in cases of non-exclusive possession, the prosecution must produce additional evidence indicating the defendant's knowledge of the contraband. The record lacks any such evidence for James Martin, such as flight, furtive gestures, close proximity to the contraband, or the drugs being in plain view. In the absence of such linking evidence, his conviction cannot be sustained.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'non-exclusive possession rule' in Indiana, creating a higher evidentiary bar for prosecutors in constructive possession cases involving shared living spaces. The decision protects individuals from being convicted merely by association or presence in a location where contraband is found. It mandates that to prove the crucial element of knowledge, the state must present specific, articulable evidence directly linking the accused to the drugs, such as suspicious behavior or incriminating statements, rather than relying solely on their control over the premises.
