Chad Noah, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Chad Noah (“Noah”) appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, for Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine,¹ Level 6 felony possession of cocaine,² and Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe.³ Noah argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Concluding that the evidence is sufficient, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Noah's convictions.

Facts

[3] The facts most favorable to the judgment reveal that, in February 2025, Noah started living with his girlfriend, Melissa Gaskell (“Gaskell”) in Starke County. During the prior year, City of Knox Police Department officers (“the police officers”) had been investigating Gaskell's house after they had received information about illegal substances and drug dealing there. While Noah lived with Gaskell, the police officers also received information about drug dealing activity. The police officers began an investigation and noticed multiple vehicles coming and going from the house. Additionally, during the investigation, the law enforcement “Flock” system, which is a surveillance system capable of tracking license plates, had located Noah's vehicle traveling to and from Chicago during overnight hours. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 152).

[4] On July 6, 2025, the police officers executed a search warrant at Gaskell's house. Noah and Gaskell were at the house, along with Gaskell's son and Noah's grandfather. At that time, Noah and Gaskell were in their shared bedroom. Gaskell was “lying on the bed with a blue rubber tourniquet around her arm next to a hypodermic needle with a syringe that was fully loaded.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 106). Noah was sitting on a stool in front of an open closet, and next to that closet was a trash can that contained hypodermic needles with syringes. Inside the closet, and within “[r]eaching distance” of Noah, the police officers found a container with a white powdery substance, which later testing revealed to be 6.34 grams of cocaine. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 109). Additionally, an “opened and accessible” safe was on the side of Noah and Gaskell's bed. Inside the opened safe, the police officers found a check made out to Noah, $3,500 in cash, clear plastic baggies, electrical tape, hypodermic needles with syringes, glass smoking pipes, and a glass jar containing “a large amount of methamphetamine,” which later testing revealed it to weigh 47.5 grams. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 110). Later that day, the deputy police chief (“the deputy chief”) interviewed Noah. During that interview, Noah told the deputy chief that he had recently used methamphetamine and heroin. Noah also acknowledged that he had taken trips with Gaskell to Chicago to buy drugs, and he admitted that he had counted money from drug deals.

[5] The State charged Noah with Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of cocaine, and Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe.

[6] In September 2025, the trial court held a two-day jury trial. The State presented testimony and evidence setting out the facts as set forth above. Additionally, during the trial, a police officer testified that clear plastic baggies and electrical tape, such as were found in Noah's bedroom, were typically used for the distribution of methamphetamine and other illegal narcotics. That same police officer also testified that Noah would have been able to see the contents of the safe from where he was sitting in the bedroom. The trial court instructed the jury on the capability and intent factors necessary to prove constructive possession. After the jury had deliberated, they found Noah guilty as charged.

[7] During Noah's sentencing hearing, the trial court entered judgments of conviction for Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of cocaine, and Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe and vacated the other convictions based on double jeopardy considerations. The trial court ordered Noah to serve an aggregate sentence of seventeen and one-half (171/212) years in the Indiana Department of Correction.

[8] Noah now appeals.

Decision

[9] Noah argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of cocaine, and Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe. Specifically, Noah contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he constructively possessed the methamphetamine, cocaine, and syringes. Additionally, he argues that, even if he constructively possessed the methamphetamine, there was insufficient evidence that he possessed the methamphetamine with intent to deliver. We disagree.

[10] “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) (cleaned up). “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. (cleaned up). “In conducting that review, we consider only the evidence that supports the jury's determination, not evidence that might undermine it.” Id. Additionally, our Indiana Supreme Court has explained that “when determining whether the elements of an offense are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, a fact-finder may consider both the evidence and the resulting reasonable inferences.” Tin Thang v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1256, 1260 (Ind. 2014) (emphasis in original).

[11] The dealing in methamphetamine statute, INDIANA CODE § 35-48-4-1.1, provides, in relevant part, that a person who knowingly or intentionally possesses, with intent to deliver, methamphetamine commits dealing in methamphetamine and that the offense is a Level 2 felony if the amount of the drug involved is at least ten (10) grams. I.C. § 35-48-4-1.1(a)(2), (e)(1). Additionally, the possession of cocaine statute, INDIANA CODE § 35-48-4-6, provides, in relevant part, that a person who knowingly or intentionally possesses cocaine commits possession of cocaine, a Level 6 felony. I.C. § 35-48-4-6(a). Lastly, the unlawful possession of a syringe statute, INDIANA CODE § 16-42-19-18, provides, in relevant part, that a person who possesses, with the intent to violate the Indiana Legend Drug Act, a hypodermic syringe adapted for the use of a controlled substance or a legend drug by injection in a human being, commits possession of a syringe, a Level 6 felony.

[12] We first address Noah's challenge to the possession element of his convictions. “[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). 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). Constructive possession, which is applicable in this case, 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.

[13] The capability element of constructive possession is met when the State shows that the defendant is able to reduce the controlled substances or contraband to the defendant's personal possession. Goliday v. State, 708 N.E.2d 4, 6 (Ind. 1999). Additionally, “[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.

[14] The intent element of constructive possession is shown if the State demonstrates the defendant's knowledge of the presence of the contraband. Goliday, 708 N.E.2d at 6. A defendant's 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. These additional circumstances may 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.

[15] Turning to the capability element, we note that the State presented evidence that Noah lived in the house and shared the bedroom where the 47.5 grams of methamphetamine, 6.34 grams of cocaine, and syringes were found and that these items were either within Noah's reaching distance or in plain view when the police executed the search warrant. Our Court has explained that “a structure 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.” Mack v. State, 23 N.E.3d 742, 758 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (cleaned up), trans. denied. From the evidence presented, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Noah was able to reduce the contraband to his personal possession and that he, therefore, had the capability to maintain dominion and control over the items. See Goliday, 708 N.E.2d at 6.

[16] The State also presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the intent element of constructive possession. While Noah had non-exclusive control of the premises, there was evidence of additional circumstances pointing to his knowledge of the presence of contraband. Specifically, the evidence revealed that the police officers discovered the drugs and syringes in Noah's bedroom that he shared with Gaskell and that Noah was in that bedroom with the contraband when the police officers found those items. Noah was sitting on a stool next to a trashcan containing used syringes, and Gaskell, who was on the bed, had a tourniquet on her arm and a “fully loaded” syringe next to her. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 106). Additionally, Noah was sitting within reach of the closet where the cocaine was found. Moreover, the evidence showed that an open safe, which contained 47.5 grams of methamphetamine and additional syringes, was within Noah's plain view. Noah also had property in the safe where the contraband was found; specifically, the safe also contained a check made out to Noah. Furthermore, Noah admitted to police that he had traveled with Gaskell to Chicago to purchase drugs and that he had helped count the money from drug sales. From this evidence, the jury could have reasonably determined that Noah had the intent to maintain dominion and control and that he constructively possessed the contraband.

[17] Lastly, we address Noah's argument that the evidence was insufficient to show that he possessed the methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Because intent is a mental state, it can be established only by considering the behavior of the relevant actor, the surrounding circumstances, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Richardson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1222, 1227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. Circumstantial evidence showing possession with intent to deliver may support a conviction, and the possession of a large amount of a narcotic substance is circumstantial evidence of intent to deliver. Id. “The more narcotics a person possesses, the stronger the inference that he intended to deliver it and not consume it personally.” Id. Moreover, the dealing in methamphetamine statute, INDIANA CODE § 35-48-4-1.1, provides that a person may be convicted of dealing methamphetamine based on possession with intent to deliver when “the amount of the drug involved is at least twenty-eight (28) grams.” I.C. § 35-48-4-1.1(b)(2).

[18] Here, the State presented evidence that Noah constructively possessed 47.5 grams of methamphetamine, which was in an open safe in Noah's bedroom. Additionally, the safe contained a large amount of cash as well as clear plastic baggies and electrical tape, which a police officer testified were typically used for the distribution of methamphetamine and other illegal narcotics. Moreover, Noah admitted that he had taken trips with Gaskell to Chicago to buy drugs and that he had counted money from drug deals. Noah's argument that there was insufficient evidence of his possession with intent to deliver is nothing more than a request to reweigh the evidence, which we decline to do. See Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d at 1244.

[19] The evidence presented during the jury trial and the inferences drawn therefrom were sufficient for the jury, as trier of fact, to conclude that Noah constructively possessed the methamphetamine, cocaine, and syringes and that he possessed the methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Accordingly, we affirm Noah's convictions for Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of cocaine, and Level 6 felony possession of a syringe.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   IND. CODE § 35-48-4-1.1.

2.   I.C. § 35-48-4-6.

3.   I.C. § 16-42-19-18.

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.