MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 26 2017, 6:44 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Madison, Indiana
Larry D. Allen
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Dustin S. Campbell, April 26, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
72A01-1611-CR-2576
v. Appeal from the Scott Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Marsha Owens
Appellee-Plaintiff Howser, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
72D01-1304-CM-116
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 72A01-1611-CR-2576 | April 26, 2017 Page 1 of 5
[1] Dustin Campbell appeals his conviction for Class A Misdemeanor Possession
of Marijuana,1 arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the
conviction. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On January 4, 2013, Indiana State Police arrived at Campbell’s residence in
Scott County at the request of his federal probation officer to serve an arrest
warrant. As soon as the troopers entered the two-bedroom home, they noticed
the smell of burnt marijuana combined with air freshener. The only individuals
present in the house were Campbell, his girlfriend, and their child. Campbell’s
girlfriend was in the bathroom drying her hair when police arrived.
[3] Within one minute of entering the residence, Trooper Martin Wimp saw
marijuana in plain view. The marijuana and rolling papers were just behind a
dresser in the first room of the house, which was within arm’s reach of the front
door. Trooper Wimp also found marijuana, a roach clip, and a glass pipe
inside of Campbell’s bedroom in an open nightstand drawer. Campbell’s
girlfriend later identified the nightstand as Campbell’s. The troopers also found
mail and other items belonging to Campbell near the nightstand. Next to the
mail, the troopers also found a can of spray air freshener.
1
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11 (2012).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 72A01-1611-CR-2576 | April 26, 2017 Page 2 of 5
[4] On April 1, 2013, the State charged Campbell with Class A misdemeanor
possession of marijuana.2 At Campbell’s September 28, 2016, trial, Campbell
admitted that the marijuana was in plain view in the residence. While he
claimed that the bedroom in which it was found belonged to William Bryant,
Bryant testified that he was staying in the other bedroom, in which no drugs
were found. Bryant testified that Campbell and his girlfriend slept in the
bedroom where the marijuana was found. Tr. Vol. II p. 215-16. Bryant
admitted that everyone in the house smoked marijuana, including Campbell.
Id. at 219-20. Campbell posed the theory that the marijuana belonged to
Bryant, but the jury did not find that theory compelling and found Campbell
guilty as charged. On October 11, 2016, the trial court sentenced Campbell to
one year of incarceration, with 275 days suspended to probation. Campbell
now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Campbell’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to
support his conviction. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we
will consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that support the
conviction. Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). We will affirm
if, based on the evidence and inferences, a reasonable jury could have found
2
The State agreed to enter Campbell into a pretrial diversion agreement. On September 25, 2015, however,
the State filed a motion informing the trial court that Campbell had not complied with the terms of the
agreement. At that point, the parties prepared for trial.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 72A01-1611-CR-2576 | April 26, 2017 Page 3 of 5
the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d
1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009).
[6] To convict Campbell of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, the
State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or
intentionally possessed marijuana. I.C. § 35-48-4-11 (2012). Possession may be
actual or constructive, and here, the State alleged that Campbell constructively
possessed marijuana. To prove constructive possession, the State must show
that Campbell had both the intent and the capability to maintain dominion and
control over the marijuana. Thompson v. State, 966 N.E.2d 112, 122 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2012). When an individual does not have exclusive dominion over the
premises, an inference indicating knowledge of and capability to maintain
dominion and control over the contraband is permitting by showing additional
circumstances. Griffin v. State, 945 N.E.2d 781, 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Additional circumstances may include incriminating statements, attempted
flight or furtive gestures, proximity to the contraband, and plain view of the
contraband. Id.
[7] Here, the record contains the following evidence relevant to Campbell’s
constructive possession of the marijuana:
The state troopers noted that the house smelled of burnt marijuana and
air freshener.
Trooper Wimp found two bags of marijuana in plain sight in the house—
the first within arm’s reach of the front door and the second inside an
open drawer on Campbell’s nightstand.
Campbell admitted that the drugs were in plain view.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 72A01-1611-CR-2576 | April 26, 2017 Page 4 of 5
The marijuana on the nightstand was found near Campbell’s mail and
other possessions, as well as a can of air freshener.
The residence belonged to Campbell. Another person who was staying
there testified that the bedroom in which the marijuana was found was
Campbell’s bedroom, and Campbell’s girlfriend testified that the
nightstand was also his.
The other person staying in Campbell’s residence testified that Campbell
smoked marijuana with him regularly.
We find that this evidence supports an inference indicating Campbell’s
knowledge and capability to maintain dominion and control over the
marijuana. In other words, a reasonable factfinder could conclude, based on
this evidence and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, that Campbell
knowingly possessed the marijuana. Campbell’s arguments to the contrary
amount to a request that we reweigh evidence and re-assess witness
credibility—a request we decline. We find the evidence sufficient.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Barnes, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 72A01-1611-CR-2576 | April 26, 2017 Page 5 of 5