Michael R. Houston v. State of Indiana
2013 WL 5833309, 997 N.E.2d 407, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 543 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant has non-exclusive control over premises where contraband is found, the State must present additional circumstances beyond mere proximity to prove the defendant had the requisite intent for constructive possession.
Facts:
- During the early morning of January 29, 2012, Officer Stephanie Souther observed Michael R. Houston walking away from a black Dodge Charger with darkly tinted windows.
- About an hour later, Officer Souther saw the same car moving at a high rate of speed and initiated a traffic stop.
- Houston was identified as the driver, while the car's owner, Luther Green, was a passenger in the back seat along with Keosha Armour. Ashanti Hood was in the front passenger seat.
- Houston did not have a valid driver's license and the car's license plate did not match the vehicle.
- During an inventory search before towing the car, Officer Jason Crowder discovered a small baggie of crack cocaine in the crevice between the front passenger seat and the center console.
- Officers also found a vial of yellow-tinted liquid in the center console area.
- When being transported, Houston first told Officer Souther the vial contained his uncle's urine but later denied knowledge of it; Green later testified it was 'anointing oil' for his church.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Indiana charged Michael R. Houston with possession of cocaine as a Class D felony in a state trial court.
- Following a jury trial, Houston was found guilty as charged.
- The trial court sentenced Houston to three years, with one year and 183 days to be executed and the remainder suspended.
- Houston, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, arguing that the State presented insufficient evidence.
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 there sufficient evidence to support a conviction for constructive possession of cocaine when the defendant was the non-owner driver of a car with three other occupants, and the cocaine was found between the passenger seat and center console, without any additional circumstances linking the defendant to the drugs?
Opinions:
Majority - Kirsch, J.
No. The evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction because the State failed to prove Houston had the intent to maintain dominion and control over the cocaine. To establish constructive possession, the State must prove both the capability and the intent to maintain control over the contraband. While Houston had the capability as the driver, his possession of the vehicle was not exclusive. In cases of non-exclusive possession, the State must show additional circumstances linking the defendant to the drugs. Such circumstances include incriminating statements, furtive gestures, contraband in plain view, or the mingling of contraband with the defendant's personal items. Here, none of these circumstances were present: Houston made no incriminating statements about the cocaine, he did not attempt to flee or make furtive gestures, the cocaine was not in his plain view, and it was not mixed with any of his belongings. The State's reliance on Houston's statement about a separate vial of liquid was unpersuasive because the vial was not connected to the cocaine and his incorrect identification of its contents actually suggested a lack of knowledge, not control.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the stringent requirements for proving constructive possession in cases of non-exclusive occupancy. It clarifies that mere presence in a vehicle where contraband is found, even as the driver, is insufficient to establish the necessary intent to possess. The ruling provides a clear application of the 'additional circumstances' test, setting a strong precedent that protects individuals from conviction based on proximity alone. For future cases, this opinion underscores the prosecution's burden to present specific, affirmative evidence linking a particular defendant to contraband in a shared space.
