MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this FILED
Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 12 2016, 8:40 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Suzy St. John Gregory F. Zoeller
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Caryn N. Szyper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Bryant Hughes October 12, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1602-CR-217
v. Appeal from the Marion County
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jose Salinas, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.
49G14-1504-F6-12426
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-217 | October 12, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Following a bench trial, Bryan Hughes was found guilty of Level 6 felony
possession of cocaine. Hughes now appeals, arguing that the evidence is
insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Around midnight on April 10, 2015, Officers Jon King and Melissa Lemrick of
the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department arrived at Hughes’ home to
serve Hughes with an arrest warrant. When the officers arrived, Hughes was
sitting on his front porch talking with a neighbor, who was standing in the
grass. The porch was dark so the officers used their flashlights. The officers
placed Hughes under arrest. In a search incident to arrest, Officer King began
removing Hughes’ personal belongings from his pockets and placing them on a
chair on the porch. Before placing the items on the chair, Officer King
confirmed that the chair was empty. While Officer King was still emptying
Hughes’ pockets, Officer Lemrick pointed out on the chair a small plastic bag
with a white substance in it, which both she and Officer King immediately
recognized as cocaine. Tr. p. 9. Hughes was arrested for possession of cocaine.
The white substance was later tested and confirmed to be 0.24 grams of
cocaine.
[3] The State charged Hughes with Level 6 felony possession of cocaine. During
the bench trial, Hughes testified that he did not have a bag of cocaine in his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-217 | October 12, 2016 Page 2 of 6
pockets and that he had no knowledge of where the cocaine came from. Id. at
27. The trial court found him guilty:
I will note for the record that I think the testimony was pretty
clear that when the officer conducted a patdown of the
Defendant, he pulled things out – handfuls of things out of the
Defendant’s pocket and put them on the chair. He noted for the
record pretty clear that there was nothing on the chair prior to
starting the search.
He did not – while I’m going to concede that he did not say, I
knew what was in there when I pulled it out immediately – it had
had to be pointed out to him by the second officer – it was pretty
clear that nothing was on – he said nothing was on the chair
prior, and that the substance was noted by the second officer as
part of the stuff that was on the chair where the officer put it –
where the officer was conducting a patdown was putting the
things.
So the logical and reasonable conclusion was that the item, the
contraband, came out of the Defendant’s pocket.
Id. at 42-43.
[4] Hughes now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Hughes contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the
evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses. Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-217 | October 12, 2016 Page 3 of 6
133, 135 (Ind. 2012). We look solely to the evidence most favorable to the
judgment together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. A
conviction will be affirmed if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences
to be drawn from the evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to
find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[6] A conviction for possession of cocaine may rest upon either actual or
constructive possession. Washington v. State, 902 N.E.2d 280, 288 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2009), trans. denied. A person actually possesses contraband when he has
direct physical control over it. Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011).
“But a conviction for a possessory offense does not depend on catching a
defendant red-handed.” Id.
[7] We find that the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Hughes had
actual possession of the cocaine.1 At trial, Officer King testified that it was dark
outside, that he and Officer Lemrick were using flashlights in order to see, that
the chair was empty before he placed Hughes’ personal items on the chair, that
he was the only one putting things in the chair, and that he was removing
“handfuls” of things from Hughes’ pockets. Tr. p. 8, 15, 16, 18. Officer King
also testified that Officer Lemrick called Officer King’s attention to the small
1
Because we find that the evidence is sufficient to prove that Hughes had actual possession of the cocaine,
we do not address his constructive-possession argument.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-217 | October 12, 2016 Page 4 of 6
bag of cocaine only after Hughes’ personal effects were on the chair. Id. at 9,
12.
[8] Nevertheless, Hughes argues that we should reverse because, even though
Officer King testified on direct examination that Officer Lemrick pointed out
the bag of cocaine “on the chair,” id. at 9, he testified on cross-examination that
he could not recall if the bag was on the chair or in Officer Lemrick’s hand
when he first saw it, id. at 17. However, the trial court heard all of this
testimony and expressly concluded that “when [Officer King] conducted a
patdown of the Defendant . . . nothing was on the chair prior, and that the
substance was noted by the second officer as part of the stuff that was on the
chair where [Officer King] put it . . . .” Tr. p. 42-43. This Court will not
reweigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses; that role is
reserved for the finder of fact. See Bailey, 979 N.E.2d at 135.
[9] Based on the evidence, the trial court could reasonably conclude that the
cocaine found came from Hughes’ pockets and was therefore in his actual
possession.2 The evidence is sufficient to support Hughes’ Level 6 felony
conviction for possession of cocaine.
2
Hughes cites Boarman v. State, 509 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. 1987), and Polk v. State, 683 N.E.2d 567 (Ind. 1997),
arguing that his circumstances are different. We disagree. In both Boarman and Polk, officers confirmed at
the start of their shifts that no contraband was present in the backseats of their cars, before Boarman and Polk
were placed in the backseats. After Boarman and Polk were taken out of the cars, contraband was found in
the backseats. The Indiana Supreme Court held that this was sufficient to convict both defendants of actual
possession of drugs. Similar to Boarman and Polk, Officer King confirmed that there was nothing in the chair
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-217 | October 12, 2016 Page 5 of 6
[10] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.
before emptying the contents of Hughes’ pockets onto the chair where cocaine was subsequently found with
Hughes’ other personal effects.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-217 | October 12, 2016 Page 6 of 6