THOMAS v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In this appeal, fifty-three-year-old Lisa Thomas (“Thomas”) argues that there is insufficient evidence to support her conviction for Level 3 felony dealing in methamphetamine.¹ To convict Thomas, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas knowingly or intentionally possessed methamphetamine with the intent to deliver it. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1. Indiana Code § 35-48-1-11 defines delivery as “an actual or constructive transfer from one (1) person to another of a controlled substance[.]”

[2] Testimony at the January 2024 trial revealed that, in May 2023, Columbus Police Department Officer John Searle (“Officer Searle”) arrested Thomas for another offense and escorted her to the county jail. During a jail intake search, a jail intake officer found one vial and two baggies of methamphetamine totaling 4.7 grams in Thomas’ bra and underwear. After the intake officer had reported to Officer Searle what she had found, Officer Searle, who was wearing a body camera, asked Thomas about the methamphetamine. Thomas told Officer Searle that she had recently started an appliance repair business and that she had had difficulty finding people to help her move appliances. Officer Searle testified that Thomas had told him that “methamphetamine is given to people to help her do work ․ moving appliances[,] things of that nature.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 105). In addition, the jury saw the video from Officer Searle's body camera, wherein Thomas stated, “I can't get nobody to work for me․ that's the reason why I got it, is to give people something to help me, you know what I'm saying?” (State's Ex. 3).

[3] Also, at the trial, Thomas testified that when she had made the recorded statement to Officer Searle, she had been under the influence and had not been “thinking right.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 182). Thomas further testified that “the only person I had intent to get it to, was myself.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 182).

[4] Thomas now argues that there is insufficient evidence that she had possessed the methamphetamine with the intent to deliver it. She specifically contends that the methamphetamine that she had possessed was “for her personal use.” (Thomas’ Br. 13). However, Thomas’ argument amounts to a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). After weighing both the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, the jury determined beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas had possessed the methamphetamine with the intent to deliver it. Accordingly, because there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, we affirm Thomas’ conviction for Level 3 felony dealing in methamphetamine.

[5] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1.

Pyle, Judge.

May, J., and Brown, J., concur.