E.D. v. State
| Decision Date | 04 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A02-0810-JV-972.,49A02-0810-JV-972. |
| Citation | 905 N.E.2d 505 |
| Parties | E.D., Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Chris P. Frazier, Marion County Public Defender Agency, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Tiffany N. Romine, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
E.D. was adjudicated a delinquent child in Marion Superior Court for carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. E.D. appeals arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that E.D. constructively possessed the handgun. We reverse.
On May 24, 2008, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Gary Toms ("Officer Toms") initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle with a missing headlight. There were five individuals in the car; E.D. was seated in the backseat between two males. Officer Toms asked the driver for identification and the driver stated that he did not have a driver's license. Officer Toms placed him in custody and then asked the other passengers to get out of the vehicle so he could do an inventory search prior to having the vehicle towed.
During the inventory search, Officer Toms found a handgun in the pocket behind the driver's seat, approximately one foot away from where E.D. had been sitting. Officer Toms also found a "blunt" allegedly containing marijuana in the pocket behind the front passenger's seat, approximately two feet away from where E.D. had been sitting. Finally, Officer Toms found a small baggie of what appeared to be marijuana in the front cup holder.
On May 27, 2008, E.D. was alleged a delinquent child on Count I: carrying a handgun without a license, which would be a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult, and Count II: possession of marijuana, which would be a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. The trial court entered a true finding with respect to Count I. Count II was dismissed because the chemist was not present to testify as to the substance found in the vehicle. The trial court suspended E.D.'s commitment to the Department of Correction with the following conditions: undergo a substance abuse evaluation and random drug testing; abide by a 7:00 p.m. curfew for sixty days; participate in the "Think for a Change" program; remove all weapons from the home; prohibit riding in vehicles without his mother or another adult's permission; and to pay court-ordered fees. E.D. now appeals.
I. Insufficient Evidence
E.D. argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the delinquency adjudication—specifically that the evidence is insufficient to prove that E.D. was in constructive possession of a handgun without a license. When the State seeks to have a juvenile adjudicated as a delinquent child for committing an act which would be a crime if a committed by an adult, the State must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. J.S. v. State, 843 N.E.2d 1013, 1016 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), trans. denied. In reviewing a juvenile adjudication, this court will consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment and will neither reweigh evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the juvenile was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we will affirm the adjudication. Id.
Indiana Code section 35-47-2-1 states in pertinent part: "a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about his person ... without a license[.]" See Ind.Code § 35-47-2-1 (2004 & Supp.2007). To convict E.D. of Class A misdemeanor possession of a handgun without a license, the State is required to prove that "the handgun was found in a vehicle and that the defendant had control of either the weapon or of the vehicle with knowledge of the weapon's presence." Grim v. State, 797 N.E.2d 825, 831 (Ind.Ct. App.2003) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). Additionally, it must be established that there was an intention to convey or transport the weapon. Id. (citing Klopfenstein v. State, 439 N.E.2d 1181, 1184 (Ind.Ct.App.1982)).
To satisfy the element of control, the State must show that E.D. had constructive possession, which occurs when an individual has the intent and capability to maintain dominion and control over the contraband. Bradshaw v. State, 818 N.E.2d 59, 62 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). Where a person's control is non-exclusive, intent to maintain dominion and control may be inferred from additional circumstances that indicate that the person knew of the presence of contraband....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
K.F. v. State
...trier of fact could conclude that the juvenile was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we will affirm the adjudication.E.D. v. State, 905 N.E.2d 505, 506–07 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (internal citations omitted). “Circumstantial evidence is no different than other evidence for this purpose, and stand......
-
Berry v. State, 49A02–1304–CR–348.
...and that the defendant had control of either the weapon or of the vehicle with knowledge of the weapon's presence.” E.D. v. State, 905 N.E.2d 505, 507 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (quotation and emphasis omitted). Constructive possession occurs when an individual has the intent and capability to maint......
-
Walton v. State
...a conviction, the State must show the defendant had control over the vehicle and knowledge of the gun's presence. See E.D. v. State, 905 N.E.2d 505, 507 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). If a defendant is the driver and sole occupant of a vehicle where a firearm is found, a jury may reasonably infer his k......
- D.S. v. State, 49A04–1504–JV–161.