MEMORANDUM DECISION
Feb 03 2015, 6:36 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
J. Grant Tucker Gregory F. Zoeller
Jones Patterson & Tucker Attorney General of Indiana
Columbus, Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Travis J. Monroe, February 3, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
03A04-1408-CR-368
v. Appeal from the Bartholomew
Superior Court.
The Honorable Kathleen Tighe
State of Indiana, Coriden, Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff Cause No. 03D02-1212-CM-6450
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A04-1408-CR-368 | February 3, 2015 Page 1 of 4
[1] Travis Monroe appeals his conviction for Possession of Paraphernalia, 1 a class
A misdemeanor. He argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the
conviction. Finding sufficient evidence, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On November 30, 2012, Monroe was a passenger in James Rush’s truck.
Bartholomew County Sheriff’s Officer Kraig Weisner (Officer Kraig) stopped
Rush for speeding and failing to signal while changing lanes. Rush was driving
with a suspended license and was arrested for driving while intoxicated.
[3] Officer Kraig asked Monroe to exit the truck, and, when he did so, the officer
noticed a corncob pipe on the floorboard of the vehicle where Monroe’s feet
had been. Officer Kraig noticed that the pipe smelt of burnt marijuana. At this
point, Officer Kris Weisner (Officer Kris) had arrived at the scene to assist with
the traffic stop. Officer Kraig gave him the pipe to field test; it tested positive
for marijuana. Officer Kraig testified at trial that he then asked Monroe who
the pipe belonged to and that Monroe stated that it was his. He then asked
Monroe what was in the pipe; Monroe told him it was tobacco. Officer Kraig
testified that when he asked him what type of tobacco, to which Monroe
responded, “you know what type it is, something to that affect.” Tr. p. 8.
1
Indiana Code § 35-48-4-8.3(a)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A04-1408-CR-368 | February 3, 2015 Page 2 of 4
[4] On December 18, 2012, the State charged Monroe with class A misdemeanor
possession of paraphernalia. Monroe’s bench trial took place on July 2, 2014,
and the trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to one year in the
Bartholomew County Jail, suspended to probation. Monroe now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Monroe argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for
possession of paraphernalia. When reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of
the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the
witnesses. Bond v. State, 925 N.E.2d 773, 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Rather, we
consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom, and we will affirm if the evidence and those
inferences constitute substantial evidence of probative value to support the
verdict. Id. Reversal is appropriate only when a reasonable trier of fact would
not be able to form inferences as to each material element of the offense. Id.
[6] In order to show that Monroe was in possession of paraphernalia, the State was
required to prove that Monroe possessed a raw material, an instrument, a
device, or other object that he intended to use to introduce a controlled
substance into his body. Indiana Code § 35-48-4-8.3(a)(1). Possession may be
actual or constructive. Trigg v. State, 725 N.E.2d 446, 449 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
Constructive possession is “an intent and capability to maintain control and
dominion” over the illicit items. Crabtree v. State, 479 N.E.2d 70, 75 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1985). When, as here, a person does not have exclusive possession of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A04-1408-CR-368 | February 3, 2015 Page 3 of 4
premises, mere presence is not sufficient proof of intent to possess. Id. Rather,
the inference of intent must be bolstered by showing additional circumstances,
such as: proximity to contraband in plain view, attempted flight, defendant’s
admission of ownership of contraband, and furtive conduct. Id.
[7] Monroe maintains that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support a
finding that he had constructive possession of the pipe. Here, although Monroe
did not have exclusive possession of the truck, additional circumstances beyond
his mere presence bolstered the inference that he had the intent to possess the
paraphernalia. The pipe was in plain view and in close proximity to Monroe.
It was found directly where his feet had been. Tr. p. 10. Moreover, both
Officer Kraig and Officer Kris testified that Monroe admitted to them that the
pipe belonged to him. Tr. p. 8, 11. Therefore, we find that there was sufficient
evidence to convict Monroe of possession of paraphernalia.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A04-1408-CR-368 | February 3, 2015 Page 4 of 4