Jones v. State Of Ind.
Decision Date | 12 April 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 49A02-0909-CR-850.,49A02-0909-CR-850. |
Citation | 924 N.E.2d 672 |
Parties | Donnell JONES, Appellant-Defendant,v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Ruth Johnson, Marion County Public Defender, Corey L. Scott, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, James E. Porter, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Donnell Jones (“Jones”) appeals his conviction for carrying a handgun without a license 1 as a Class C felony. Jones raises the following issue, which we restate as: whether the evidence is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Jones had the requisite intent to constructively possess the handgun at issue.
We reverse.
On February 2, 2008, Jones, who was a mechanic at Hunt's Automotive in Indianapolis, Indiana, was driving a customer's 1990 Jeep Cherokee on North Sherman Drive. Since Jones's vehicle had broken down, he decided to test-drive the customer's vehicle on his way home from work. Jones had consumed alcohol at work and continued to do so on his way home.
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Detective Alfred Watson, who was using a radar device, observed Jones driving the Jeep at a speed of fifty-two miles-per-hour in a thirty-five mile-per-hour zone. Detective Watson stopped the vehicle and observed Jones “reaching in the rear seat around the rear floorboard and around the front floorboard of the vehicle.” Tr. at 11. As Detective Watson approached the driver's side door of the vehicle, Jones drove away. Detective Watson pursued Jones and stopped him again. The officer observed that Jones had a very strong odor of alcoholic beverage about his person, had bloodshot eyes, and had slurred speech. Detective Watson observed open containers of alcoholic beverages lying on the front passenger floorboard and behind the driver's seat. When a computer check was conducted on Jones's information, Detective Watson learned that Jones's license was suspended for a prior conviction.
When Jones complied and exited the vehicle at the officer's request, he was too intoxicated to perform any field sobriety tests. Detective Watson placed Jones in handcuffs, at which time Jones became belligerent and threatened the officer. Jones was placed under arrest and transported to the Arresting Processing Center. Detective Watson began an inventory of the vehicle and found a Bryco 380 handgun under the driver's seat. The handgun was located “right under the front portion of the seat.” Id.
The State charged Jones with operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class A misdemeanor, driving while suspended as a Class A misdemeanor, carrying a handgun without a license as a Class A misdemeanor, and carrying a handgun without a license as a Class C felony. Jones did not challenge the operating a vehicle while intoxicated count and was found guilty by the trial court of that offense. The trial court found insufficient evidence to support the driving while suspended count and found Jones not guilty of that offense. The trial court found Jones guilty of carrying a handgun without a license as a Class C felony, and sentenced Jones to one year executed for the operating a vehicle while intoxicated conviction, and to five years executed for the carrying a handgun without a license conviction to be served concurrently. Jones now appeals.
Our standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is well-settled. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the conviction. Boyd v. State, 889 N.E.2d 321, 325 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). We do not assess witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. Id. We consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Id. We affirm the conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the conviction. Id. “Where the evidence of guilt is essentially circumstantial, the question for the reviewing court is whether reasonable minds could reach the inferences drawn by the jury; if so, there is sufficient evidence.” Whitney v. State, 726 N.E.2d 823, 825 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). Further, we need not determine if the circumstantial evidence is capable of overcoming every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but whether the inferences may be reasonably drawn from that evidence which supports the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Bustamante v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1313, 1318 (Ind.1990).
In order to convict Jones of carrying a handgun without a license, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jones carried a handgun on or about his body without a license. Ind.Code § 35-47-2-1. Further the State had to establish that Jones had actual or constructive possession of the handgun. Grim v. State, 797 N.E.2d 825, 831 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). In order to establish actual possession, the State must show that the defendant had direct physical control over the handgun. Bradshaw v. State, 818 N.E.2d 59, 62 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). In order to establish constructive possession, the State must show that the defendant had both the intent and capability to maintain dominion and control over the handgun. Id. at 62-63. That showing inherently involves establishing that the defendant had knowledge of the handgun's presence. Grim, 797 N.E.2d at 831.
Jones was on his way home while test-driving a customer's car at the time of the traffic stop. Our Supreme Court has stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. McBride
...showed only that a gun was found under the passenger's seat of a car the defendant didn't own but was driving); Jones v. State , 924 N.E.2d 672, 675-76 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (evidence showed only that the defendant was test-driving a customer's car in which a gun was found under the driver's......
-
Taylor v. State
...which supports the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Bustamante v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1313, 1318 (Ind. 1990).Jones v. State, 924 N.E.2d 672, 674-75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). In order to convict Taylor of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, the State was required to prove that Taylor possessed......
-
Hamilton v. State
...is whether reasonable minds could reach the inferences drawn by the jury; if so, there is sufficient evidence." Jones v. State, 924 N.E.2d 672, 674 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Whitney v. State, 726 N.E.2d 823, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)). The evidence that (1) Hamilton was in possession of ......
-
B.R. v. State
...establish that a suspect has engaged in furtive movements, the act must connote evasion or concealment. See, e.g. , Jones v. State , 924 N.E.2d 672, 675 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (including a description of furtive movement as: "reaching in the rear seat around the rear floorboard and around the......