Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 15 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 3--774A116,3--774A116 |
| Citation | 165 Ind.App. 60,330 N.E.2d 771 |
| Parties | Jacqueline R. SMITH, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
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.
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. 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 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 presented, this Court will consider inferences drawn therefrom reasonable if there was substantial evidence of probative value presented, Allbritten v. State (1974), Ind., 317 N.E.2d 854; Releford v. State (1975), Ind.App., 325 N.E.2d 214; Birkla v. State (1975), Ind., 323 N.E.2d 645, but if the State fails to prove an essential element of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. State
...person were found seated at a kitchen table with two open foils which contained heroin right in front of them; in Smith v. State, (1975) Ind.App., 330 N.E.2d 771, again drugs were found in the dressing room of a department store under such circumstances that no one other than the defendant ......
-
Jeffers v. State
...not be actual and exclusive to create criminal liability. Cooper v. State (1976), 171 Ind.App. 350, 357 N.E.2d 260; Smith v. State (1975), 165 Ind.App. 60, 330 N.E.2d 771. Constructive possession may be proved by circumstantial evidence from which the care, management and control over the i......