Young v. State
| Decision Date | 28 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 1084S378,1084S378 |
| Citation | 478 N.E.2d 50 |
| Parties | Carol L. YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Nancy L. Broyles, McClure, McClure & Kammen, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
A jury trial resulted in the conviction of appellant for dealing in cocaine, a Class A felony. Appellant was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment.
The facts are: On January 20, 1984, Indianapolis Police obtained a search warrant for appellant's residence located at 4705 Andover Square in Indianapolis. Appellant shared her home with three of her adult children and one Danny McClure. Pursuant to the search warrant, police entered the home and searched appellant's bedroom among other places. In the bedroom, in two locations, were plastic bags containing white powder later found to be cocaine. Inside a shoe box in the bedroom closet, officers found a strainer and a test tube containing cocaine residue. In the basement of the house the police found a "gram scale" and a box of plastic baggies. Police officers testified that this type of equipment was that used by drug dealers in packaging their products for sale.
Appellant claims the verdict of the jury is not supported by sufficient evidence in that the State of Indiana failed to prove either actual or constructive possession and also failed to prove possession with intent to deliver.
In the case at bar none of the cocaine was found on the person of the appellant. It is the general rule that where actual possession is absent constructive possession will sustain a conviction. Thomas v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 1, 291 N.E.2d 557. It is appellant's contention, however, that since four other adults occupied appellant's residence, she did not have exclusive possession of the premises and therefore the jury was in error in finding constructive possession.
However, the evidence in the instant case was that, although appellant shared the house generally with other adults, she in fact exercised private dominion over her own bedroom. It was in a drawer in her bedroom where some of the packages of cocaine were found. Other packages were found in her jewelry/cigarette box. This was the situation in Griffin v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 205, 285 N.E.2d 644, in which Griffin was convicted although he shared his apartment with his common law wife. Evidence in that case was that heroin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lampkins v. State
...court has held that "constructive" possession may support a conviction for a drug offense when actual possession is absent. Young v. State, 478 N.E.2d 50, 51 (1985); Thomas v. State, 260 Ind. 1, 4, 291 N.E.2d 557, 558 (1973). A defendant is in constructive possession of drugs when the State......
-
Jackson v. State
...that the theory of constructive possession may support a conviction for a drug offense when actual possession is absent. Young v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 50; Thomas v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 1, 291 N.E.2d 557. A defendant is in constructive possession of drugs when the State shows th......
-
Kail v. State
...to sustain a conviction based on possession with intent to deliver. Montego v. State (1987), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 74, 76; Young v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 50, 51. A quantity permitting an inference of predisposition to sell is one which could not be personally consumed or used and theref......
-
Hall v. Department of State Revenue
...Ind.App. 432, 440, 379 N.E.2d 1023, 1029 (Ind.Ct.App. 1978); United States v. Kitchen, 57 F.3d 516, 520 (7th Cir.1995); Young v. State, 478 N.E.2d 50, 51 (Ind.1985) (stating that where actual possession is absent, constructive possession may sustain a conviction)). In cases where there was ......