Hayes v. State
Decision Date | 15 November 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 49A05-0609-CR-540.,49A05-0609-CR-540. |
Citation | 876 N.E.2d 373 |
Parties | Anthony HAYES, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Jill M. Acklin, Westfield, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Cynthia L. Ploughe, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Anthony Hayes ("Hayes") was convicted of Class D felony possession of cocaine following a bench trial in Marion Superior Court. He appeals, raising one issue: whether sufficient evidence supports his conviction. We affirm.
On July 8, 2005, Indianapolis Police Officer Jonathan Baker ("Officer Baker") was on patrol in a marked police cruiser near the 800 block of Udell Street. While stopped at a stop sign, Officer Baker observed three or four individuals "just standing there not doing anything" while Johnny Davis swept trash from the street into a blue plastic trash bin. Tr. p. 22. As Officer Baker slowed to a stop, he observed Hayes walk over to the bin, which he described as "at most . . . eighteen inches high[.]" Tr. p. 34. Officer Baker got out of his patrol car as Hayes stopped, reached down and put his right hand, which was closed in a fist, completely into the bin. Hayes then pulled his open and empty right hand out.
Officer Baker got out of his patrol vehicle and approached the group. He first spoke to Davis and then walked toward the trash bin. As Officer Baker reached down into the bin, Hayes immediately started across the street. Officer Baker asked Hayes to come back and talk to him, but Hayes acted as if he did not hear the request. Officer Baker asked Hayes again to come back and talk to him, and Hayes responded Tr. p. 31.
Hayes continued across the street and then entered a church lot with a large "No Trespassing" sign. Officer Baker then ordered Hayes to stop. Hayes looked at Officer Baker, who took a step towards him, and then took off running. Officer Baker chased Hayes for "a couple of blocks" before apprehending him. Tr. p. 32. Officer Baker then left Hayes with another officer while he returned to the trash bin. During the chase, Davis had continued sweeping trash into the bin, which was now "half to three quarters" full. Tr. p. 34. Officer Baker recovered a baggie of crack cocaine "from the front part of the bin right where [he] had seen [] Hayes put his hand[.]" Tr. p. 25.
The State charged Hayes with Class D felony possession of cocaine and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. At the conclusion of a bench trial, Hayes was convicted of both counts and sentenced to concurrent terms, which after taking into account good-time credit, amounted to time served. He now appeals his conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine.
When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to establish the elements of a crime, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that support the conviction. Cherrone v. State, 726 N.E.2d 251, 255 (Ind.2000). "We do not reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses and will affirm the conviction if there is probative evidence from which a reasonable [fact-finder] could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. Further, a conviction may be based purely on circumstantial evidence. Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53 (Ind.1995). "On appeal, the circumstantial evidence need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." Id. at 55. It is enough if an inference reasonably tending to support the conviction can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence. Id.
Hayes argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because several other individuals were present who could have placed the crack cocaine into the bin during Officer Baker's "extended absence from the scene." Br. of Appellant at 7. He asserts that while the bin was unattended, someone else may have been presented with "an ideal opportunity to get rid of the contraband and shift the blame to someone else." Br. of Appellant at 9.
In support of his argument, Hayes argues that the facts presented here substantially differ from Indiana cases holding that sufficient evidence was presented where a defendant discarded or disposed of an illegal substance later recovered by police. See Patterson v. State, 255 Ind. 22, 262 N.E.2d 520 (1970) ( ); Gilbert v. State, 426 N.E.2d 1333 (Ind.Ct. App.1981) ( ); Cartwright v. State, 154 Ind.App. 328, 289 N.E.2d 763 (1972) ( ).
In response, the State contends that the evidence presented establishes actual possession of the cocaine. Actual possession of contraband occurs when a person has direct physical control over the item. Gee v. State, 810 N.E.2d 338, 340 (Ind.2004).
In the case before us, Officer Baker testified that he observed Hayes reach down and place his closed right fist completely inside the approximately...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peters v. State , 43A05–1103–CR–144.
...that can tie the gun to [Peters].” (Br. of Appellant at 16.) A conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence alone. Hayes v. State, 876 N.E.2d 373, 375 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied. Circumstantial evidence need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id. It is sufficient......
-
Williams v. State
...State, 671 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ).[15] “[A] conviction may be based purely on circumstantial evidence.” Hayes v. State, 876 N.E.2d 373, 375 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (citing Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind.1995) ), trans. denied. “ ‘On appeal, the circumstantial evidence need no......
-
Poitan v. State
...and theft of Dylan's money, it is well established that a conviction may be based solely on circumstantial evidence. Hayes v. State, 876 N.E.2d 373, 375 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (citing Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind.1995) ), trans. denied. See also Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227, 230 (Ind......
-
Arnold v. State
...State, 671 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ). [10] “[A] conviction may be based purely on circumstantial evidence.” Hayes v. State, 876 N.E.2d 373, 375 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (citing Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind .1995) ), trans. denied. “ ‘On appeal, the circumstantial evidence need ......