Marcus Cornelius Norman, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Following a jury trial, Marcus Norman was convicted of Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and Level 6 felony intimidation. Norman now appeals, challenging the unlawful possession of a firearm conviction, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support it.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On January 30, 2024, Officer Luke Forston and Detective Kyle Dennis of the Evansville Police Department conducted a traffic stop on a black Chevrolet Caprice for speeding and improper lane changes. Officer Forston activated the emergency lights on his patrol car, and the driver of the Caprice pulled into a parking lot and stopped.

[4] Shortly thereafter, Officer Forston approached the passenger side of the vehicle, while Detective Dennis approached the driver side. The vehicle was driven by Heather Martin, with her husband, Norman, in the front passenger seat. Martin could not produce a vehicle registration or proof of insurance when asked.

[5] Officer Forston asked Norman whether the car belonged to him or to Martin. Norman responded, “[O]urs.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 32. Martin then exited the vehicle after Officer Forston directed her to do so.

[6] When Detective Dennis asked if Martin had any weapons on her, she responded that there were firearms in her bag. Detective Dennis immediately retrieved a backpack style purse from the center console between the driver and passenger seats. At that time, Officer Forston was speaking with Norman, who remained seated in the front passenger seat.

[7] After Norman exited the vehicle, Detective Dennis secured the backpack inside Officer Forston's patrol car. He then requested and received Martin's verbal consent to search her backpack, which contained two firearms and other objects that belonged to her.

[8] Officer Forston and Detective Dennis, wearing gloves, searched the backpack and found a black 9mm Taurus handgun along with a silver and black .380-caliber firearm inside but did not remove them. Martin and Norman were subsequently arrested and transported to the Vanderburg County Jail. During transport, Norman screamed profanities and made threatening remarks to Detective Dennis.

[9] Detective Dennis submitted the backpack and its contents for forensic analysis. A forensic DNA analyst later determined that the DNA profile from the rear slide of the black 9mm Taurus was a mixture of three individuals-- Martin, Norman, and one unknown individual. The silver and black .380-caliber firearm contained an insufficient quantity of DNA for further analysis.

[10] On February 1, 2024, the State charged Norman with two counts of Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, one count of Level 6 felony intimidation, and one count of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The State later dismissed the marijuana charge.

[11] At trial, the State's forensic DNA analyst testified that the DNA found on the 9mm Taurus was “at least one trillion times more likely” to have come from Norman and the other two contributors than from three unrelated individuals. Transcript Vol. 2 at 87. This statistical analysis provided “very strong support for the proposition” that Norman's DNA was included as a contributor. Id.

[12] In October 2024, the jury found Norman guilty of the firearm charge related to the 9mm Taurus and the intimidation charge, and not guilty on the second firearm charge. He then admitted to being a serious violent felon. On November 13, 2024, the court sentenced him to six years of incarceration.

[13] Norman now appeals, challenging only his firearm conviction on sufficiency grounds.

Discussion & Decision

[14] Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence challenges is well-settled:

[We] neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility. Rather we consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. We will affirm a conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value that would lead a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dowell v. State, 206 N.E.3d 1167, 1170 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256, 262-63 (Ind. 2020) (internal citations omitted)).

[15] To support a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, the State must prove that Norman knowingly or intentionally possessed a firearm and had previously been convicted of a serious violent felony. See Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5(c). Norman concedes his status as a serious violent felon but argues that the evidence failed to prove he possessed the 9mm firearm found in the vehicle inside Martin's backpack.

[16] A conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm “may rest upon proof of either actual or constructive possession.” See Smith v. State, 113 N.E.3d 1266, 1269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). Actual possession is the “direct physical control of the gun.” Id. at 1270. Constructive possession occurs when the defendant has both (1) the capability to maintain dominion and control over the item, and (2) the intent to maintain dominion and control over it. Id. Norman was not found in actual possession of the firearm; therefore, constructive possession is at issue here.

[17] The capability prong of constructive possession is satisfied when the State shows that the defendant can reduce contraband to the defendant's personal possession. See Goliday v. State, 708 N.E.2d 4, 6 (Ind. 1999). The intent prong of constructive possession is met if the State demonstrates the defendant's knowledge of the presence of contraband. Id.

[18] Here, the evidence established that Norman was seated next to the backpack, which was located on the center console of a vehicle he described as “ours.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 32. The backpack was within his immediate reach, and the 9mm Taurus firearm was recovered from it. Although the backpack was claimed by Martin, Norman's shared possessory interest in the vehicle and proximity to the firearm supported a reasonable inference that he had the ability to maintain dominion and control of the firearm located in his wife's backpack.

[19] Further, Norman's DNA was found to be a major contributor on the rear slide of the 9mm Taurus firearm. The presence of his DNA on a functional component of the firearm, combined with his proximity to the firearm, allowed the jury to reasonably infer that he had the intent and knowledge to maintain dominion and control over the firearm. See Williams v. State, 240 N.E.3d 1285, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (holding that DNA evidence on the firearm and holster supported constructive possession as circumstantial proof of knowledge).

[20] Norman's argument that his DNA on the firearm was a result of “secondary DNA transfer” is unavailing. Appellant's Brief at 11. The jury clearly rejected this argument after considering the DNA evidence, including testimony from the forensic DNA analyst who admitted that she had not been trained in secondary DNA transfer. Norman's argument constitutes a request to reweigh evidence, which we cannot do. See Young v. State, 198 N.E.3d 1172, 1176 (Ind. 2022) (holding that when there are conflicts in the evidence, the jury must resolve them). We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Norman constructively possessed the black 9mm Taurus firearm.

[21] Judgment affirmed.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Judges Pyle and DeBoer concur. Pyle, J. and DeBoer, J., concur.