Smith v. State, 3--774A116

• Docket Nº: No. 3--774A116
• Citation: 165 Ind.App. 60, 330 N.E.2d 771
• Case Date: July 15, 1975
• Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

Page 771

330 N.E.2d 771 165 Ind.App. 60 Jacqueline R. SMITH, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). No. 3--774A116. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District. July 15, 1975.

Bruce E. Bloom, Bloom & Bloom, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Russell W. Sims, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before STATON, P.J., and HOFFMAN and GARRARD, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Smith contests her conviction of possession of heroin, IC 1971, 35--24--1--2, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--3520(a) (Burns 1956), contending the evidence was not sufficient to infer possession.

We affirm.

The record reveals that a department store clerk became concerned that Smith was changing price tags and notified security.

Page 772

To reinforce that suspicion, the particular dressing room Smith was to use was inspected and found empty. Smith then entered the area and the security officer observed through the door louver that she was changing the tags. Immediately on Smith's leaving the room, the security officer re-entered and discovered a plastic container with money both in and [165 Ind.App. 61] around it. The container and the money were then given to the department store clerk.

The container had a five-dollar ($5.00) bill wrapped around the outside, and thirty dollars ($30.00) inside along with numerous foil packets. Suspecting possible narcotics, another security officer was notified and followed Smith to another store in the mall area and abserved her acting as if she had lost something. She then returned to the department store and asked for her money, then proceeded to search the dressing room. The security officer followed her to an adjoining store and specifically heard her inquire for thirty-five dollars ($35.00). Just as Smith was about to leave in her vehicle, the security officer requested identification and received her name and address from her driver's license. She was subsequently arrested when the foil packets were tested and found to be heroin.

When this Court is requested to review the sufficiency of the evidence, it looks only to the evidence most favorable to the State and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Martin v. State (1974), Ind., 314 N.E.2d 60; Keyton v. State (1972), 257 Ind. 645, 278 N.E.2d 277; Cabell v. State (1974), Ind.App., 312 N.E.2d 142; Hauk v. State (1974), Ind.App., 312 N.E.2d 92; Caywood v. State (1974), Ind.App., 311 N.E.2d 845. In examining the evidence...