WILLIAMS v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Harvey Devon Williams appeals his conviction of Level 6 felony possession of a syringe.¹ Williams argues his conviction should be reversed because the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence Williams's statement about having a “drug problem.” (State's Ex. 1 at 2:34-2:35.) Holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 6, 2022, St. Joseph County Police Department Patrol Officer Augustin Barker was patrolling when he saw a white Dodge van being driven with a truck plate, which caused Officer Barker to doubt the validity of the plate. Officer Barker used his in-car laptop to check the license plate and determined it was registered to a truck, not the white minivan. Officer Barker initiated a traffic stop. The driver was a woman who claimed to not have identification on her. As Officer Barker was speaking with the driver, he noticed a glass pipe for smoking illegal drugs in the van's ashtray and a man – later identified as Williams – sitting on the floor behind the driver's seat. Officer Barker returned to his patrol car to request assistance from other officers to search the vehicle.

[3] During the search, Officer Barker seized the glass pipe from the ashtray, a white powdery substance in a yellow tin from the driver's door, some marijuana, and several syringes. Three syringes were in the area behind the driver's seat where Williams had been sitting, and they appeared in plain view when Williams was removed from the van. One of those syringes contained “a small amount of brown-ish colored liquid[,]” which Officer Barker believed was an illegal drug. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 85.) Officer Barker read Williams his Miranda ² warnings, and Williams agreed to speak with Officer Barker. Williams admitted the van was his, but he denied possessing any drugs. The dialogue continued:

Officer Barker: “I --- because when you stood up, I --- right where you were sitting there was like three syringes, literally right next to where you were just at.”

Williams: “Yeah. There's --- there's a bunch of them in there.”

Officer Barker: “What are they for?”

Williams: “You know, I, I've had a drug problem for a while, but I don't have any drugs.”

(State's Ex. 1 at 2:25-2:37.) When Officer Barker took Williams and the driver into custody, he noticed they both had “injection sites or track marks” on their arms.³ (Tr. Vol. 3 at 92.) Testing of the white powdery substance in the tin revealed it contained fentanyl.

[4] On December 7, 2022, the State charged Williams with Level 6 felony possession of a syringe. The State later filed notice pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) of the State's intent to offer Williams's statement about his drug problem. After a pre-trial hearing, the court granted the State's motion to introduce Williams's statement about having a drug problem. Williams objected to that evidence when offered at trial, and the trial court overruled his objection. A jury found Williams guilty. The court imposed an eighteen-month sentence and suspended the entire sentence to probation.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Williams appeals the admission of evidence at his trial. The admission of evidence is trusted to the sound discretion of the trial court. Russell v. State, 234 N.E.3d 829, 858 (Ind. 2024). We reverse for an abuse of discretion, which occurs “only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id. (quoting Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind. 2001)). Generally, relevant evidence is admissible, and irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Evid. Rule 402. Relevant evidence is evidence that “has any tendency to make a fact [of consequence to the action] more or less probable than it would be without the evidence[.]” Evid. Rule 401.

[6] Williams argues the trial court improperly admitted testimony from Officer Barker about Williams's admission of having a drug problem, and he claims the admission thereof violated Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b). Rule 404(b) states that “[e]vidence of a crime wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Evid. R. 404(b)(1). Nevertheless, the evidence may be admissible for “proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Evid. R. 404(b)(2).

[7] At issue in Williams's trial was whether he committed Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe. The charging information alleged Williams “with intent to violate an offense described in I.C. 35-48-4, did knowingly possess or have under his control a hypodermic syringe or needle or an instrument adapted for the use of a legend drug or a controlled substance by injection in a human being.” (Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 6.) This tracks the definition of the crime provided in Indiana Code section 16-42-19-18(a)(2), which makes possession of a syringe illegal when the person has “intent to ․ commit an offense described in IC 35-48-4[.]” That chapter of the Indiana Code defines criminal offenses involving controlled substances. Thus, to convict Williams of unlawful possession of a syringe as charged, the State had to demonstrate not only that Williams possessed a syringe, but also that he had it for consuming illegal drugs.

[8] Williams's motive or intent for possessing the syringes was the element of his crime that the State was proving by offering his admission of a drug problem, and it was precisely the question he was answering when he volunteered his admission. Officer Barker asked: “What are they for?” (State's Ex. 1 at 2:30-2:32.) Williams answered: “You know, I, I've had a drug problem for a while, but I don't have any drugs.” (Id. at 2:34-2:37.) As such, Williams's statement was direct evidence of the charged crime, which Rule 404(b) is not intended to render inadmissible. See Mise v. State, 142 N.E.3d 1079, 1086 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (finding no violation of Rule 404(b) because victim's testimony provided direct evidence that defendant committed the charged offenses and was not offered to demonstrate the defendant acted in accordance with character), trans. denied. Because the evidence was admissible, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting it.

Conclusion

[9] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence the statement that Williams made to Officer Barker about why the syringes were in his van as it was direct evidence of the intent element of the charge against him. Accordingly, we affirm.

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 16-42-19-18.

2.   Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), reh'g denied.

3.   Officer Barker defined track marks as “marks that are from a hypodermic needle that basically are like scars or cuts from the needles on the arms.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 92.)

May, Judge.

Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.