Opinion
24A-CR-1615
12-04-2024
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Joshua A. Brown Muncie, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Megan M. Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Jay Superior Court The Honorable Gail M. Dues, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 38D01-2404-F6-30
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Joshua A. Brown Muncie, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana
Megan M. Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
MATHIAS, JUDGE
[¶1] Shane Lee Williams appeals his conviction for Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe. Williams raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] On April 3, 2024, Jay County Sheriff's Department Lieutenant Tony Lennartz initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle being operated by Mathew Campofiore-Audet. Williams was in the front passenger seat of the vehicle.
[¶3] As Lieutenant Lennartz approached the driver's side window, he smelled the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle. Lieutenant Lennartz asked Campofiore-Audet to exit the vehicle, and he then asked Campofiore-Audet if there was anything in the vehicle he needed to know about. Campofiore-Audet stated, "there's some needles in there." Tr. Vol. 2, p. 91. Lieutenant Lennartz then asked Williams to also exit the vehicle, and Lieutenant Lennartz asked Williams "if he . . . had needles in the vehicle." Id. at 92. Williams replied that "he did. Syringes." Id.
[¶4] Lieutenant Lennartz searched the vehicle. Inside, he located a container that is commonly used to safely store used needles and syringes. The lid had been broken off of the container, and "syringes were falling out of it." Id. at 94. Lieutenant Lennartz also observed syringes with the needles still attached in the glovebox and on the floor of the backseat. At least some of those syringes had "bright[] red . . . blood" on them, which suggested to Lieutenant Lennartz that they had been recently used. Id. at 100.
[¶5] Williams and Campofiore-Audet were taken to the Sheriff's Department, and Lieutenant Lennartz read Williams his Miranda rights. Williams then admitted that he had used methamphetamine earlier that day just a few miles from where Lieutenant Lennartz had initiated the traffic stop. Lieutenant Lennartz knew from his training and experience that one method methamphetamine users might use to ingest methamphetamine is by injection. And, while Lieutenant Lennartz did not observe any injection sites on Williams's arms, he knew from his training and experience that a person, such as Williams, who "has a lot of tattoos on their arms" can have injection sites that are "hard to see." Id. at 119. Williams stated that he and Campofiore-Audet were taking the syringes to a nearby needle exchange.
[¶6] The State charged Williams with Level 6 felony possession of a syringe. At his ensuing jury trial, Campofiore-Audet testified that, about five to ten minutes before Lieutenant Lennartz initiated the traffic stop, Campofiore-Audet and Williams were "on the side of the road" looking "for some methamphetamine" that Williams had thrown out of the car window earlier that day when he thought they were about to be pulled over on a separate occasion. Id. at 127. After the trial, the jury found Williams guilty as charged. The court then entered its judgment of conviction and sentenced Williams accordingly.
[¶7] This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[¶8] On appeal, Williams argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. For challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the judgment of the trier of fact. Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021). We will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility. Id. We will affirm a conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[¶9] To prove that Williams committed Level 6 felony possession of a syringe, the State was required to show that Williams possessed "a hypodermic syringe or needle or an instrument adapted for the use of a controlled substance or legend drug by injection in a human being" with the intent to commit an offense relating to controlled substances. Ind. Code § 16-42-19-18 (2023). Here, Williams argues only that the State failed to show that he had the necessary intent to commit an offense relating to controlled substances. As we have explained:
Cases in which courts have found sufficient evidence of unlawful intent generally include evidence of prior narcotics convictions; admissions to drug use; the presence of illegal drugs or drug residue on the paraphernalia; track marks on the defendant's arms or hands; or withdrawal symptoms showing recent drug use. E.g., Perkins v. State, 57 N.E.3d 861, 866 (Ind.Ct.App. 2016) (heroin residue on paraphernalia and defendant's flight immediately after officers discovered paraphernalia); Trigg v. State, 725 N.E.2d 446, 450 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000) (cocaine residue on crack pipe); McConnell v. State, 540 N.E.2d 100, 103-04 (Ind.Ct.App. 1989)
(presence of marijuana residue on marijuana pipe); Dabner v. State, 258 Ind. 179, 182, 279 N.E.2d 797, 798-99 (1972) (recent needle marks); Sargent v. State, 153 Ind.App. 430, 436-37, 287 N.E.2d 795, 798-99 (1972) (heroin residue on paraphernalia, recent needle marks, symptoms of withdrawal, admission that he was an addict); Stevens v. State, 257 Ind. 386, 388-89, 275 N.E.2d 12, 13 (1971) (needle marks, admission to past narcotics use); Von Hauger III v. State, 255 Ind. 666, 668, 266 N.E.2d 197, 198 (1971) (prior convictions for narcotics crimes, admission to narcotics use, attempt to hide paraphernalia). Several of these cases discuss flight and/or concealment as factors supporting an inference of intent, but they reaffirm . . . that flight or concealment alone is insufficient to establish intent. Perkins, 57 N.E.3d at 865; McConnell, 540 N.E.2d at 102.Berkhardt v. State, 82 N.E.3d 313, 317 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017). Further, "mere possession" of syringes and "the absence of evidence of a medical use for the syringes" is not sufficient to support a conviction under Indiana Code section 16-42-19-18. Id.
[¶10] The State presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that Williams possessed the syringes with the intent to commit an offense relating to controlled substances. Some of the syringes in the vehicle appeared to have fresh blood on them, suggesting recent use. Williams admitted to prior methamphetamine use earlier that same day and near the location of the traffic stop. Campofiore-Audet testified that, just minutes before the traffic stop, he and Williams were looking on the side of the road for methamphetamine that Williams previously had attempted to conceal from law enforcement. And, while no injection sites were visible on Williams, his arms were heavily tattooed, and the evidence shows that tattoos can make injection sites difficult to identify.
[¶11] Williams's arguments on appeal simply seek to have this Court reweigh the evidence in the manner most favorable to him, which is not consistent with our standard of review. Accordingly, we reject his argument, and we affirm his conviction for Level 6 felony possession of a syringe.
[¶12] Affirmed.
Brown, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.