B.R. v. State
| Decision Date | 28 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-JV-1203 |
| Parties | B.R., Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: Joel M. Schumm, Indianapolis, Indiana, Colleen Morrison, Certified Legal Intern, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Tina L. Mann, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Juvenile B.R. appeals his juvenile adjudication for acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor. After being stopped for traffic violations, a vehicle driven, but not owned, by B.R. was searched by a police officer who detected the odor of marijuana. During the search, the officer removed a panel to the left of the steering wheel, revealing a handgun in a hidden space inside the dashboard. After a fact-finding hearing, the juvenile court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to find that B.R. constructively possessed the handgun. Finding that such a conclusion was in error, we reverse.
[2] B.R. raises one issue, which we restate as whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his juvenile adjudication for acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute carrying a handgun without a license.
[3] On October 24, 2019, Officer Nicholas Snow of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department observed a silver Chevrolet Impala fail to properly signal its turn and fail to fully stop at a stop sign. The Impala was being driven by then-seventeen-year-old B.R., who was accompanied by a passenger, K.W., whose parent owned the vehicle. B.R. was driving the car because K.W. was intoxicated, and B.R. offered to drive him home to avoid any accidents. Officer Snow later admitted that he lied by informing the boys that he pulled them over because the vehicle may have been involved with a domestic dispute being investigated by the Officer. Officer Snow approached the Impala's driver's side and detected the odor of marijuana, apparently emanating from the car. B.R. could not produce a driver's license, Officer Snow ran a check and ascertained that B.R. had never been issued a driver's license.
[4] Officer Corey Shinn arrived at the scene to assist Officer Snow. The officers asked both boys to exit the Impala, placed both boys in handcuffs, and commanded them to sit on the curb. Officer Snow then commenced a search of the Impala based on the smell of marijuana. During the search, Officer Snow removed an intact piece of the dashboard to the left of the steering wheel. Officer Snow was aware from previous searches of similar vehicles that the panel covered a hollow compartment that could be used to conceal contraband. Officer Snow had previously discovered firearms and narcotics in similar hidden compartments located in other Impala vehicles.
[5] According to Officer Snow, "[t]here is a turn knob for the light switch, in that style of Impala, if you pull on that knob, there is a void between the dashboard and the firewall." Tr. Vol. II p. 18. The void "is only as big as the light switch but then extends very far back." Id. Upon removing the compartment panel, Officer Snow discovered a Glock 19 model handgun, which had previously not been visible. No evidence was elicited that Officer Snow's search of the Impala revealed the presence of marijuana.
[6] While B.R. was handcuffed on the sidewalk, Officer Shinn attempted to engage B.R. in conversation, though Officer Shinn was aware that B.R. was a juvenile and B.R. had not been advised of his rights or had meaningful consultation with a parent before being questioned by police. Officer Snow performed a DNA swab on the firearm and then arrested B.R. K.W. was not arrested.
[7] On October 25, 2019, the State filed a petition to adjudicate B.R. a delinquent child, alleging the following, all of which would constitute crimes if committed by an adult: Count I, carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor; Count II, dangerous possession of a firearm, a Class A misdemeanor; Count III, possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor;1 and Count IV, operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a license, a Class C misdemeanor. The State moved to dismiss Count III on December 11, 2019.
[8] The juvenile court held a fact-finding hearing on January 21, 2020. Officer Snow testified that both B.R. and K.W. appeared "extremely nervous" and visibly shook as they interacted with police. Id. at 13. Officer Snow testified that he arrested B.R. because B.R. would have been able to reach the handgun.2 Officer Snow testified that he believed he overheard B.R. tell a different officer that B.R. "just likes guns." Tr. Vol. II p. 28. The State presented no DNA evidence, despite the swabs of the firearm at the scene of the traffic stop.
[9] The trial court questioned the State regarding B.R.’s knowledge of the existence of the handgun during the following colloquy:
Tr. Vol. II p. 40 (emphasis added).
[10] On January 21, 2020, the juvenile court entered true findings for acts of juvenile delinquency that would constitute: Count I,3 carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor; and Count IV, operating a vehicle without a license, a Class C misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. This appeal followed.
[11] B.R. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his adjudication as delinquent for acts that, if committed by an adult, would be carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor.4 "In juvenile delinquency adjudication proceedings, the State must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." A.B. v. State , 885 N.E.2d 1223, 1226 (Ind. 2008) (). "When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a juvenile adjudication, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility." B.T.E. v. State , 108 N.E.3d 322, 326 (Ind. 2018). "We consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences supporting it." Id. (citing K.S. v. State , 849 N.E.2d 538, 543 (Ind. 2006) ). "We will affirm a juvenile-delinquency adjudication if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (citing Moran v. State , 622 N.E.2d 157, 159 (Ind. 1993) ).
[12] "[O]ur jurisprudence on the issue of ‘possession’ is rather straightforward: it can be either actual or constructive." Sargent v. State , 27 N.E.3d 729, 732-33 (Ind. 2015). "Actual" possession of contraband, whether a handgun or an illegal substance, occurs when a person has direct physical control over the item. See, e.g., Gee v. State , 810 N.E.2d 338, 340 (Ind. 2004). If the State cannot prove actual possession, it may nonetheless prevail on proof of "constructive" possession. See, e.g., Gray v. State , 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). " ‘A person constructively possesses [an item] when the person has (1) the capability to maintain dominion and control over the item; and (2) the intent to maintain dominion and control over it.’ " Sargent , 27 N.E.3d at 732-33 (quoting Gray , 957 N.E.2d at 174 ).
[13] The question here is whether a reasonable trier of fact, when considering the circumstances, could determine beyond a reasonable doubt that B.R. had constructive possession of the handgun in the hidden compartment.5 We first consider whether the evidence demonstrated that B.R. had the capability to maintain dominion and control over the handgun. Goliday v. State , 708 N.E.2d 4, 6 (Ind. 1999) (). B.R. was seated close to the hidden compartment and would have been able to reduce the handgun to his personal possession. Accordingly, the State presented evidence of B.R.’s capability to maintain dominion and control over the handgun.
[14] We next consider whether the evidence demonstrated that B.R. had the intent to maintain dominion and control over the handgun.
Shorter v. State , 151 N.E.3d 296, 305-06 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied.
[15] The State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Correa v. State
... ... his offense was "not more egregious than the typical ... offense" and because "[t]here were no injuries to ... property, no injuries to person, and Correa was cooperative ... with law enforcement during the entirety of their ... interaction." Appellant's Br. p. 12. Correa, ... however, sneaked into Dingess's semi-truck cabin on the ... highway in the middle of the night with a handgun while under ... the influence of methamphetamine. His actions could have ... endangered Dingess and other drivers that night. We cannot ... ...
-
K.T. v. State
...to the judgment, demonstrate he knew of the presence of the firearm in the vehicle. The facts of K.T.'s case are more like the facts in B.R. v. State and D.C.C. v. State the facts in Deshazier v. State and Person v. State. For instance, the State presented no evidence K.T. made incriminatin......
-
S.F. v. State
...113 N.E.3d 269, 273 (Ind.Ct.App. 2018). Actual possession occurs when a person has direct physical control over the item. B.R. v. State, 162 N.E.3d 1173, 1176 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021). When actual possession cannot be shown, such as in S.F.'s case, then the conviction may instead rest on proof of......