Patricia L. Roberts, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Patricia L. Roberts appeals her conviction for possession of methamphetamine as a level 6 felony. She contends the State presented insufficient evidence to support her conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 25, 2022, Kendallville Police Officer Justin Beall initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle due to “[i]mproper display of a license plate.” Transcript Volume III at 37. Officer Blake Kugler arrived at the scene to assist shortly thereafter. Terry Young was the driver of the vehicle, and Roberts was in the front passenger seat. Officer Beall was traveling with his “canine partner,” Frodo, at the time of the stop. Id. at 10. “Frodo is certified to locate methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and MDMA[.]” Transcript Volume II at 246. After “hand[ing] off” the driver's documents to Officer Kugler to investigate and complete the citation, Officer Beall walked Frodo around the vehicle conducting a “free air sniff” while the occupants remained inside. Transcript Volume III at 11. Following an “alert” by Frodo, Officer Beall returned Frodo back to his police cruiser and instructed Young and Roberts to exit the vehicle. Id. Officer Beall “informed them of the positive alert and that a search of the vehicle and them, and the items they just removed from the vehicle would take place.” Id.

[3] Roberts “removed her purse with her as she exited the vehicle,” and Officer Beall conducted a search of her purse. Id. at 12. As he removed a flashlight from Roberts's purse, “she instantly recognized the item and said that [a friend] had provided it to her.” Id. Officer Beall observed that the flashlight was “missing the back holding piece to it that you could unscrew” and that “the battery compartment was empty; however, there was a white residue throughout the inside of it.” Id. Based upon his training and experience, Officer Beall suspected the “white powdery substance” was methamphetamine. Id. at 13.

[4] Despite suspecting that the residue he had observed was methamphetamine, Officer Beall “was distracted at the time” and “made the mistake” of returning the flashlight into the purse. Id. at 15. However, Officer Kugler subsequently also searched Roberts's purse, saw the flashlight with the missing battery compartment, and observed white residue inside. Based upon his training and experience, Officer Kugler also suspected the residue “to be methamphetamine.” Id. at 67.

[5] On March 28, 2022, the State charged Roberts with possession of methamphetamine as a level 6 felony. The court held a jury trial on June 27, 2024. Forensic Chemist Hillary Loucks from the Miami Valley Regional Crime Laboratory testified that she conducted chemical analysis of the residue found in the flashlight. She stated that “there was minimal residue present” but that she was still able to analyze it and that it “tested positive for methamphetamine.” Id. at 96. When asked on cross-examination if there was a “minimum weight for testable meth,” she responded, “if an item weighs less than 0.01, it is considered residue. But as far as like a minimum residue size, we do not have minimum residue.” Id. at 97. The jury found Roberts guilty as charged.¹

Discussion

[6] Roberts challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction. Specifically, she argues that “[w]hile the State's evidence may have been sufficient to prove that [she] was in possession of methamphetamine, it was insufficient to prove that she possessed it knowingly.” Appellant's Brief at 7.

[7] 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. We look to the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the verdict. Id. The conviction will be affirmed if there exists evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[8] To convict Roberts of possession of methamphetamine as a level 6 felony, the State was required to prove that she knowingly or intentionally possessed methamphetamine (pure or adulterated). Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1. To satisfy the possession element of the offense, the State was required to prove that Roberts had either actual or constructive possession of the contraband. Parks v. State, 113 N.E.3d 269, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). Actual possession occurs when a person “has direct physical control over” an item. Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). Here, the residue that tested positive for methamphetamine was found inside a flashlight located inside Roberts's purse that she was holding in her hands upon exiting the vehicle. This evidence was sufficient to prove that Roberts was in actual possession of methamphetamine.

[9] Roberts focuses on the small amount of methamphetamine found in her possession and suggests that the State failed to prove that she possessed it knowingly. She directs us to Beeler v. State, 807 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied, in support of her claim. In Beeler, we recognized that while the State “must only prove that the defendant possessed an identifiable amount” of a controlled substance, the State must also establish that such possession was knowing or intentional. 807 N.E.2d at 792. We acknowledged that “[a] person engages in conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” Id. (quoting Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b)). In concluding that evidence was presented from which the trier of fact could infer that Beeler knowingly or intentionally possessed the small amount of cocaine residue found on an electronic scale, we observed:

In this case, during the search incident to Beeler's arrest, Officer Vanek found the electronic scale in Beeler's pants pocket. While we observe that an electronic scale could be utilized for a legitimate, legal purpose, because cocaine residue was present on the scale found in Beeler's pocket, a reasonable person could infer that the scale was used for weighing cocaine. Further, there is no question that Beeler knowingly possessed the scale found in his pants pocket. Finally, Beeler admitted that he obtained the scale for the purpose of buying cocaine.

Id. at 793 (record citation omitted). Roberts argues that the facts of her case “are distinguishable from Beeler such that this Court should find the State's evidence insufficient[.]” Appellant's Brief at 10. We are not persuaded.

[10] Here, Officer Beall found the flashlight containing methamphetamine residue in Roberts's purse that she was holding, comingled with other items owned by her. As he removed the flashlight from her purse, Roberts immediately recognized it and claimed that she was only in possession of it because a friend had given it to her. We agree with the State that a reasonable jury could infer from her attempt to disclaim ownership of the flashlight that she was aware that it contained an illegal substance. Moreover, although a flashlight can be utilized for a legitimate purpose, because the battery compartment was open and empty which permitted both Officers Beall and Kugler to easily observe methamphetamine residue, a reasonable person could infer that the flashlight was used for storing contraband. Under these facts, the State presented evidence from which the jury could infer that Roberts knowingly possessed the methamphetamine residue found in the flashlight, and therefore the evidence was sufficient to support her conviction.

[11] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Roberts's conviction.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On August 2, 2024, the court sentenced Roberts to 547 days in the Department of Correction. On October 3, 2024, Roberts filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence and, following a hearing on November 26, 2024, the court entered a corrected order sentencing Roberts to 547 days in the Noble County Jail.

Brown, Judge.

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