MEMORANDUM DECISION
Mar 31 2015, 9:50 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
Timothy J. Burns Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Karl M. Scharnberg
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Henry Gooch, March 31, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1408-CR-571
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court.
The Honorable David Hooper,
State of Indiana, Magistrate.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 49F08-1308-CM-52760
Sharpnack, Senior Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1408-CR-571 | March 31, 2015 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Henry Gooch appeals his conviction of possession of marijuana, a Class A
1
misdemeanor. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Gooch’s
conviction.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On the night of August 11, 2013, Officer Daniel Brezik of the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department was on patrol. He saw a group of ten to
fifteen people congregating in the street, blocking a lane of traffic. Next, the
group crossed the street. Officer Brezik and another officer, Bill Wogan,
stopped their cars and got out.
[4] Officer Wogan asked the people to talk with him. Several persons walked over
to Officer Wogan, but Gooch did not immediately comply with his request.
Instead, Gooch walked away from the officers, behind a parked car. Gooch
had his hands at his sides, and the officers could not see what he was doing.
After “a few seconds,” Gooch walked over to the officers. Tr. p. 6. Officer
Brezik did not see anyone else behind the parked car.
1
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11 (2013).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1408-CR-571 | March 31, 2015 Page 2 of 6
[5] Officer Brezik thought Gooch’s actions were suspicious, so he walked over to
the other side of the car. He saw two clear plastic baggies on the ground. They
contained a green leafy substance that he recognized as marijuana. The baggies
looked clean, like they “hadn’t been laying on the side of the street for any
period of time.” Id. at 15.
[6] Officer Brezik walked back to Gooch and put handcuffs on him without saying
anything about the marijuana. Gooch said, “I didn’t have any weed.” Id. at 8.
“Weed” is “a slang term for marijuana.” Id.
[7] Next, Officer Brezik recovered the marijuana from behind the car and secured
it. Subsequent testing revealed the baggies, weighed together, contained almost
twenty-five grams of marijuana.
[8] The State charged Gooch with possession of marijuana. The case was tried to
the bench. After the presentation of evidence, the court determined that Gooch
was guilty and sentenced him accordingly. This appeal followed.
Discussion and Decision
[9] Gooch contends that there is insufficient evidence that he had possessed the
marijuana that Officer Brezik found. In considering challenges to the
sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness
credibility. Caruthers v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1016, 1022 (Ind. 2010). Instead, we
consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable
inferences drawn from the evidence. Tin Thang v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1256, 1258
(Ind. 2014). We affirm a conviction unless no reasonable trier of fact could find
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1408-CR-571 | March 31, 2015 Page 3 of 6
every element proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Blount v. State, 22 N.E.3d
559, 565 (Ind. 2014).
[10] In order to convict Gooch of possession of marijuana as a Class A
misdemeanor, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Gooch (1) knowingly or intentionally (2) possessed (3) marijuana, pure or
adulterated. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11.
[11] Gooch was never seen holding the marijuana, but conviction for a possessory
offense does not necessarily depend on catching a defendant in actual
possession. Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). A conviction for
possessing contraband may rest instead on proof of constructive possession. Id.
A person constructively possesses contraband when the person has (1) the
capability and (2) the intent to maintain dominion and control over the item.
Id.
[12] When a defendant does not exert exclusive control over the area where the
contraband is found, the State must support an inference of constructive
possession by proving additional circumstances pointing to the defendant’s
knowledge of the presence and the nature of the contraband. Id. at 174-75. Our
Supreme Court has identified examples of such circumstances, including:
(1) a defendant’s incriminating statements; (2) a defendant’s
attempting to leave or making furtive gestures; (3) the location of
contraband like drugs in settings suggesting manufacturing; (4)
the item’s proximity to the defendant; (5) the location of
contraband within the defendant’s plain view, if the contraband’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1408-CR-571 | March 31, 2015 Page 4 of 6
incriminating nature is immediately apparent; and (6) the
mingling of contraband with other items the defendant owns.
Id. at 175.
[13] Here, when Officer Wogan asked a group of people to move toward him,
Gooch went in the other direction and moved behind a car while keeping his
hands at his sides and out of view. Gooch remained behind the car for only a
few seconds before approaching Officer Wogan. Officer Brezik did not see
anyone else behind the car. When Officer Brezik investigated the area behind
the car, he found two baggies of marijuana in plain view. The baggies were
clean, which indicated that they had not been there for long. Finally, when
Officer Brezik handcuffed Gooch, Gooch made an incriminating statement: “I
didn’t have any weed.” Tr. at 8. This is sufficient evidence to establish
Gooch’s knowledge of the marijuana, as well as his intent to maintain control
and dominion over it prior to abandoning it. See Holmes v. State, 785 N.E.2d
658, 662 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (evidence supported constructive possession of
drugs where drugs were found near where defendant had been sitting and
defendant initially fled from police).
[14] Gooch points to testimony that other people were present in the area where the
marijuana was found. This is a request to reweigh the evidence, which our
standard of review forbids.
Conclusion
[15] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1408-CR-571 | March 31, 2015 Page 5 of 6
[16] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Baker, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1408-CR-571 | March 31, 2015 Page 6 of 6