Darron Davis, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Darron Davis appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine as a level 5 felony. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 29, 2024, Tippecanoe County Community Corrections Officer Steven Ogle received a tip from another staff member that “[t]here was going to be someone bringing ․ contraband” into the Tippecanoe County Community Corrections facility. Transcript Volume II at 78. When “participant Darron Davis” arrived at the facility, Officer Ogle exited his office, turned on his body camera, and asked Davis to enter the secured area to begin “checking in procedures.”¹ Id. at 78-79. Davis emptied his pockets and placed his belongings on a table. Officer Ogle searched Davis's belongings, conducted a patdown of Davis, and did not discover any contraband. Officer Ogle then escorted Davis to the body search room, which is a secured area inside the facility. The body search room is approximately ten feet by ten feet with a divider wall separating an area of approximately six feet by four feet where a participant being searched would remove their clothing.

[3] At some point, Officer Ogle turned off his body camera to conduct the search pursuant to the policy of community corrections and for Davis's privacy. After they arrived at the body search room, Officer Ogle unlocked the door, checked the room, including the floor, to ensure nothing was left behind from a previous search, and determined that the floor was clear. Officer Ogle asked Davis to step behind the divider and remove his articles of clothing one at a time and hand him each piece of clothing. Davis removed his clothing, and Officer Ogle did not find anything in his shoes, socks, pants, or shirt. At that point, Davis was wearing only his underwear and asked Officer Ogle if he needed to remove his underwear as well. Officer Ogle told him that he should, Davis began to do so, and Officer Ogle saw a bag fall from Davis's underwear and heard the bag strike the floor.

[4] Officer Ogle finished the search and left the bag on the floor until Davis was redressing himself “to avoid any physical contact or while [Davis was] completely undressed.” Id. at 86. After Davis dressed, Officer Ogle retrieved the bag which contained a substance he recognized as methamphetamine. Officer Ogle then activated his body camera and called the Sheriff's Department.

[5] On April 30, 2024, the State charged Davis with possession of methamphetamine as a level 5 felony and alleged Davis was an habitual offender. On August 20, 2024, the court held a jury trial. The State presented Officer Ogle's testimony. The parties stipulated regarding the chain of custody of the “small Ziploc style baggie containing a white crystalline substance” and that the substance was determined to be methamphetamine. Id. at 99. The parties also stipulated that the Tippecanoe County Community Corrections facility qualified as a penal facility under Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-232.

[6] After the State rested, Davis testified that Officer Ogle asked him what was on the floor after he gave him his underwear. Davis stated that he saw a Ziploc baggie containing a crystal substance and he was surprised to see it because “it wasn't” his baggie. Id. at 108. He also indicated that he did not know where the baggie came from and that he refused to hand Officer Ogle the baggie because he “didn't want anything to do with that.” Id. at 109. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked if he saw anything on the floor when he entered the body search room. Davis answered: “I wasn't paying attention, but no.” Id. at 110. He also indicated that he was completely naked when the baggie of methamphetamine was found. When asked if he saw Officer Ogle “do anything, move around, [or] get in his pockets,” he answered in the negative. Id.

[7] The jury found Davis guilty of possession of methamphetamine as a level 5 felony. Davis admitted to being an habitual offender. The court sentenced Davis to four years for possession of methamphetamine and enhanced the sentence by four years with six years executed at the Department of Correction, one year executed with the Tippecanoe County Community Corrections, and one year suspended to probation.

Discussion

[8] Davis argues that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he constructively possessed methamphetamine. He argues that he and Officer Ogle were the only individuals present during the strip search, no video was taken of the search, and no forensic testing of the bag occurred. The State argues that Davis was in actual possession of the methamphetamine and that, even if by some stretch of reason and common sense he was not in actual possession of the contents of his underwear, then he was in constructive possession of the methamphetamine.

[9] Generally, when reviewing claims of insufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995), reh'g denied. Rather, we look to the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the verdict. Id. We will affirm the conviction if there exists evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[10] Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1 provides that “[a] person who, without a valid prescription or order of a practitioner acting in the course of the practitioner's professional practice, knowingly or intentionally possesses methamphetamine (pure or adulterated) commits possession of methamphetamine” and “[t]he offense is a Level 5 felony if ․ the amount of the drug involved is less than five (5) grams and an enhancing circumstance applies.” Ind. Code § 35-48-1-16.5 provides that an “[e]nhancing circumstance” includes when “[t]he person committed the offense on the property of a ․ penal facility ․”

[11] It is well-established that possession of an item may be either actual or constructive. See Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268, 1275 (Ind. 1997), modified on reh'g, 685 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. 1997). Actual possession occurs when a person has direct physical control over the item. Gee v. State, 810 N.E.2d 338, 340 (Ind. 2004). Constructive possession occurs when a person has: (1) the capability to maintain dominion and control over the item; and (2) the intent to maintain dominion and control over it. Id. Knowledge is a mental state, and thus the jury must resort to reasonable inferences as to its existence. Young v. State, 761 N.E.2d 387, 389 (Ind. 2002).

[12] The record reveals that Officer Ogle testified that he unlocked the door of the body search room, checked the room, including the floor, to ensure nothing was left behind from a previous search, and did not observe anything on the floor. He testified that he “saw the bag fall from [Davis's] underwear” when Davis began to remove his underwear, he “watched it fall to the ground,” and he also heard the baggie strike the ground. Transcript Volume II at 86. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Davis had actual possession of the baggie containing methamphetamine and conclude that evidence of probative value was presented from which a reasonable jury could find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of methamphetamine as a level 5 felony.²

[13] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Davis's conviction.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On cross-examination, Officer Ogle testified that participants of community corrections consent to searches and strip searches.

2.   Davis argues that Final Jury Instruction 14.1560 explaining the concept of constructive possession did not advise the jury that, when possession of the premises is non-exclusive, the inference of intent must be supported by additional circumstances pointing to the accused's knowledge of both the nature of the controlled substance and its presence. At trial, Davis did not object to this instruction, and thus he has waived the issue for appellate review. See Baker v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1169, 1178 (Ind. 2011) (finding the appellant had neither objected to the trial court's instruction nor offered an instruction of his own and accordingly waived the issue), reh'g denied; Ind. Trial Rule 51(C) (“No party may claim as error the giving of an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.”).

Brown, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge Tavitas concur. Altice, C.J., and Tavitas, J., concur.