SANDERS v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Clarence Sanders Jr. appeals his convictions for possession of a narcotic drug, possession of methamphetamine, possession of cocaine, and possession of a controlled substance. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he constructively possessed the drugs, which were found in the house where he was living. The house, however, bore every hallmark of a “stash house”—one used for storing, manufacturing, and distributing drugs. A text message on Sanders's phone also revealed he was involved in coordinating drug sales with his son. And the drugs were recovered from both Sanders's bedroom closet and a backpack that his son had left at the house. Finding sufficient evidence to support Sanders's convictions, we affirm.

Facts

[2] During the week of February 24, 2025, several officers with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department and agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration were surveilling narcotics activity at a house located on West Michigan Street in Indianapolis. The initial targets were Zaquan Hall and Clarence Sanders III—also known as DeLario—who is Sanders's son (Son).

[3] That week, officers arranged a controlled buy using a confidential informant (CI), who entered the Michigan Street house to purchase drugs. Sanders was at the house when the controlled buy took place. Shortly after the CI entered the house, Son arrived and went inside, carrying a dark-colored backpack. The CI soon exited the house, met up with police, and surrendered the purchased drugs. The drugs were later determined to be methamphetamine. Son also left the house, having spent very little time inside.

[4] Based on the controlled buy, police obtained a search warrant for the house. While executing the warrant on February 27, 2025, officers found Sanders and Hall inside. Officers described the house as “primarily empty,” observing that it contained two bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen, and a basement, but was sparsely furnished with just one couch, a broken table, and “some camping chairs.” Tr. Vol. III, p. 173.

[5] Upon entering the house, officers encountered Sanders in the first bedroom (Bedroom 1), which was located near the front of the house. Sanders later admitted that he was living in the house and that Bedroom 1 was his. Officers described Bedroom 1 as “fairly empty” and “very basic,” containing an air mattress, men's shoes, “a little bit of clothing,” and a small closet. Tr. Vol. II, p. 208; Vol. III, pp. 62, 173. Inside one of the shoes, officers found a wallet containing Sanders's identification card.

[6] On the floor of Bedroom 1's “very small” closet, officers found a plastic bag containing a broken-open brick of cocaine and “corner baggies.” Tr. Vol. II, pp. 208, 214. According to the officers, corner baggies are commonly used to package small quantities of narcotics. Laboratory testing later confirmed that the cocaine recovered from the closet weighed 723.42 grams.

[7] The second bedroom (Bedroom 2) was also sparsely furnished, containing an air mattress and a small closet. In that room, near the closet, officers located a backpack matching the description of the one Son was seen carrying into the house during the controlled buy. Inside the backpack, officers discovered large quantities of narcotics that laboratory testing confirmed to be 388.43 grams of methamphetamine, 39.958 grams of fentanyl, 103.04 grams of a synthetic drug identified as MDMB-4en-PINACA, and 75.33 grams of marijuana. An officer who qualified as an expert in narcotics investigations testified that he had never seen quantities of cocaine or methamphetamine of this size possessed by a mere user. He estimated the street value of the drugs to be between $100,000 and $140,000.

[8] Officers also searched the house's kitchen, where they found indicia of drug dealing and manufacturing. They recovered four digital scales, a glass Pyrex container, and a spoon—all coated with residue—along with bags of brown powder, believed to be the synthetic drug spice, which appeared to have been prepackaged for sale to customers. They also recovered a bottle of promethazine-codeine, a controlled substance, and a container of lactose, which an officer explained is commonly used as a cutting agent to “make [the] product go further.” Id. at 195. Another officer observed that the kitchen was “primarily empty, except for all of the drug manufacturing items that were located” there. Tr. Vol. III, p. 173.

[9] In addition to the drugs, scales, cutting agents, and other indicia of an illegal drug enterprise, officers found four firearms and three cell phones in the house. A search of Sanders's person revealed “a small amount of marijuana in his pocket.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 227. When an officer tried to interview Sanders, Sanders told him that “[b]asically ․ nothing was his, he didn't own any guns, and to stop talking to him.” Id. at 229.

[10] Officers later extracted text messages from Sanders's cell phone. In one message, someone wrote to Sanders: “Is you son there I need a basket ball of ice cream it has to weigh it's a businessman buying if it's good he's gonna buy a lot so plz no bs.” Exh. Vol. II, p. 8 (formatting and spelling in original). According to the narcotics expert, “a basketball usually refers to ․ an ounce or 28-grams,” and “ice cream” is “another street slang nickname for methamphetamine.” Tr. Vol. IV, p. 131. The narcotics expert explained that “whoever this individual is that is texting this phone is saying he needs an ounce of methamphetamine. He is going to sell it to somebody else, so middleman it, and if it is good product, then that person will buy bulk quantities from the dealer of the ounce of methamphetamine.” Id. at 132.

[11] The State charged Sanders with multiple counts that included drug dealing and drug possession offenses. Following a three-day jury trial, a jury acquitted Sanders of all dealing counts but convicted him of possession of a narcotic drug as a Level 3 felony (Count 6), possession of methamphetamine as a Level 3 felony (Count 8), possession of cocaine as a Level 3 felony (Count 9), maintaining a common nuisance as a Level 6 felony (Count 10), possession of a controlled substance as a Level 6 felony (Count 11), and possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor (Count 13).

[12] The trial court sentenced Sanders to an aggregate term of 30 years, with 12 years suspended.¹ Sanders now appeals his possession convictions, arguing the State presented insufficient evidence to prove he constructively possessed the drugs found in the stash house.²

Discussion and Decision

[13] “Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims trigger a deferential standard of review in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, instead reserving those matters to the province of the jury.” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “In conducting that review, we consider only the evidence that supports the jury's determination, not evidence that might undermine it.” Id.

[14] Sanders argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he possessed the drugs found in the stash house. He specifically challenges the possession element of each of his possession convictions, except his conviction for possession of marijuana.

[15] A “conviction for a possessory offense does not depend on catching a defendant red-handed.” Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). In the absence of actual possession of contraband, constructive possession may support a conviction for a possession offense. Goliday v. State, 708 N.E.2d 4, 6 (Ind. 1999). Constructive possession requires a showing that “the defendant has both (1) the intent to maintain dominion and control and (2) the capability to maintain dominion and control over the contraband.” Id.

I. Capability

[16] First, we analyze the capability element. A “trier of fact may infer that a defendant had the capability to maintain dominion and control over contraband from the simple fact that the defendant had a possessory interest in the premises on which an officer found the item.” Gray, 957 N.E.2d at 174 (citing Gee v. State, 810 N.E.2d 338, 340 (Ind. 2004)). In essence, “the law infers that the party in possession of the premises is capable of exercising dominion and control over all items on the premises.” Gee, 810 N.E.2d at 340-41 (citations omitted). And “a house or apartment used as a residence is controlled by the person who lives in it and that person may be found in control of any drugs discovered therein, whether he is the owner, tenant, or merely an invitee.” Id. at 341 (citing Martin v. State, 372 N.E.2d 1194, 1197 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978)). This applies whether possession of the premises is exclusive or not. Id.

[17] Here, Sanders had the capability to maintain dominion and control over all of the drugs found in the stash house. The stash house itself was “primarily empty,” had only two small bedrooms, and contained very few possessions. Tr. Vol. III, p. 173. The record is clear that Sanders was found in Bedroom 1 when officers entered the stash house. He admitted that he was living in the house and that Bedroom 1 was his. That bedroom contained Sanders's shoes, clothing, wallet, and identification card. He had direct access to the cocaine found in his bedroom closet. As for the backpack full of drugs that was found in Bedroom 2, Sanders was in the house when his Son arrived with the backpack during the controlled buy. That backpack was one of the very few personal items in the house. And Sanders, as a resident of the house, had access to both bedrooms and their contents. Therefore, the capability element of constructive possession for each of Sanders's possession convictions is supported by the evidence.

II. Intent

[18] Next, we analyze the intent element. To prove the intent element of constructive possession, the State must demonstrate the defendant's knowledge of the presence of the contraband. Goliday, 708 N.E.2d at 6. This knowledge “may be inferred from either the exclusive dominion and control over the premises containing the contraband, or, if the control is non-exclusive, evidence of additional circumstances pointing to the defendant's knowledge of the presence of contraband.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Our Supreme Court has enumerated these additional circumstances to include:

(1) a defendant's incriminating statements; (2) a defendant's attempting to leave or making furtive gestures; (3) the location of contraband like drugs in settings suggesting manufacturing; (4) the item's proximity to the defendant; (5) the location of contraband within the defendant's plain view; and (6) the mingling of contraband with other items the defendant owns.

Gray, 957 N.E.2d at 175.

[19] The listed circumstances are not exhaustive. Cannon v. State, 99 N.E.3d 274, 280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). And to establish that a defendant had the intent to maintain dominion and control over contraband, the State is not required to prove all of the listed additional circumstances. Gee, 810 N.E.2d at 344. “Rather, the State is required to show that whatever factor or set of factors it relies upon in support of the intent prong of constructive possession, those factors or set of factors must demonstrate the probability that the defendant was aware of the presence of the contraband and its illegal character.” Id.

A. Count 9 – Possession of the Cocaine Found in Bedroom 1

[20] Count 9 alleged that Sanders possessed the 723.42 grams of cocaine found in the closet of his bedroom. Sanders argues that, because he shared the house with Hall, there was non-exclusive possession of the premises and, thus, additional circumstances were required to prove that he knew about the cocaine. The record, however, reveals that several additional circumstances point to Sanders's knowledge of the presence of the cocaine in the house.

[21] First, the cocaine was not found in a common area of the house. It was found in Sanders's own bedroom closet, in close proximity to his personal possessions—his shoes and wallet—demonstrating the mingling of the contraband with his belongings. Second, the “broke open brick” of cocaine—along with “corner baggies”—suggested that this was not cocaine that was simply hidden away in his closet, but cocaine that was actively accessed, used, or distributed. Tr. Vol. II, p. 214; Vol. III, p. 63. Third, the cocaine was found not far from the kitchen, which was full of items typically associated with an illegal drug manufacturing and dealing operation: digital scales, a Pyrex container coated with residue, and a cutting agent.

[22] Fourth, the sheer quantity of cocaine—723.42 grams with a substantial street value—supported the inference that Sanders both knew about the drug and intended to control it. And fifth, an incriminating text message that was sent to Sanders's phone indicated that he was involved in coordinating drug transactions for Son.

[23] These five additional circumstances provide ample evidence to support the inference that Sanders knew about and intended to control the cocaine in his closet. Therefore, the State more than satisfied its requirement of demonstrating Sanders's knowledge of and intent to maintain dominion and control over that drug.

B. Counts 6, 8, and 11 – Possession of the Drugs Found in the Backpack in Bedroom 2

[24] Counts 6, 8, and 11 alleged that Sanders possessed the drugs inside the backpack found in Bedroom 2. Count 6 pertained to the 39.958 grams of fentanyl; Count 8, the 388.43 grams of methamphetamine; and Count 11, the 103.04 grams of the synthetic drug. Sanders contends he had no knowledge of or intent to maintain dominion or control over these drugs, as the evidence showed the drugs were in a backpack carried into the house by his Son. But his argument turns a blind eye to the evidence that supports a different conclusion.

[25] An incriminating text message that was sent to Sanders's phone indicated that Sanders, at the very minimum, was involved in coordinating methamphetamine transactions for his Son. In fact, when the controlled buy involving the CI and the backpack took place, Sanders was at the stash house. When the officers found the backpack, Sanders was living in and had access to the entire house. And the stash house itself was not cluttered. Indeed, the officers executing the warrant observed that the house was sparsely furnished and “primarily empty.” Tr. Vol. III, p. 173. In such a setting, items like the backpack containing drugs would stand out, not blend in, reinforcing the inference that Sanders, as a resident with full access, was aware of the drugs present in the home.

[26] Additionally, the stash house's kitchen provided a setting that strongly suggested a drug manufacturing and dealing operation. Sanders's own bedroom contained over 700 grams of cocaine. The presence of such a large quantity of cocaine in Bedroom 1, combined with the substantial quantities of other illegal drugs found in the backpack in Bedroom 2, suggested a large-scale commercial drug operation. Indeed, the narcotics expert testified that he had never seen the quantities of methamphetamine and cocaine that were recovered from the house in the possession of a mere user and that the total street value of all the drugs was between $100,000 to $140,000.

[27] Still, Sanders argues that certain additional circumstances weigh in his favor. He contends, for example, that he made no incriminating statements to police; he did not flee; the drugs were not located near any drug manufacturing paraphernalia; and the drugs in the backpack were not in plain view. However, Sanders's arguments are merely an invitation to reweigh the evidence and reassess the credibility of the witnesses, which we will not do. See Hancz-Barron, 235 N.E.3d at 1244.

[28] Here, the jury was entitled to infer from (1) the massive quantity of drugs in the backpack, (2) the paraphernalia found in the kitchen that was indicative of drug dealing, (3) the proximity of the backpack to that drug dealing setting, and (4) the incriminating text message found on Sanders's phone indicating his involvement with coordinating drug sales that Sanders had knowledge of and the intent to control the drugs Son brought into the house in the backpack. Based upon all of these circumstances, a reasonable jury could infer that he knew about the drugs in the backpack and had the intent to maintain dominion and control over them.

Conclusion

[29] The State presented sufficient evidence that Sanders constructively possessed the drugs found in the stash house where he was living. We therefore affirm Sanders's convictions for Count 6, Level 3 felony possession of a narcotic drug; Count 8, Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine; Count 9, Level 3 felony possession of cocaine; and Count 11, Level 6 felony possession of a controlled substance.

[30] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Sanders and Zaquan Hall were tried together as co-defendants. After being convicted of multiple drug-related counts and after subsequent vacaturs, the trial court sentenced Hall to an aggregate term of 54 years for his convictions of dealing in a narcotic drug, dealing methamphetamine, dealing cocaine, dealing a Schedule I substance, unlawful possession of a firearm, maintaining a common nuisance, and dealing marijuana.

2.   Sanders does not challenge his convictions for Count 10, maintaining a common nuisance as a Level 6 felony, or Count 13, possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor.

Weissmann, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Foley, J., concur.