Jeremy Charles Goodwin, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Jeremy Charles Goodiwn appeals his conviction for Level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] One night in July 2024, Goodwin went to his cousin, Roxanna Ervin's, house. At some point, Goodwin came into the doorway from outside and was “bleeding everywhere.” Tr. Vol. II p. 98. Goodwin told Ervin to call 9-1-1 because “he shot his hand.” Id. Officer's responded to the call and located Goodwin a couple of blocks away from Ervin's house, suffering from a gunshot wound to the hand.

[3] Meanwhile, Goodwin's car remained parked in Ervin's driveway with the rear driver-side door ajar. Looking through the open door, police saw blood and the barrel of a gun tucked “between the seat and the back rest” of the rear seat of the car. Id. at 70. Police towed the car, executed a search warrant, and recovered the gun. Subsequent testing revealed a mixture of DNA from three individuals on the trigger of the gun; but Goodwin “contributed over ninety percent of the DNA within that mixture” and was “considered as the contributor” of the DNA. Id. at 161.

[4] The State charged Goodwin with Level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun by someone who had been convicted of a felony within the last fifteen years. At Goodwin's jury trial, the court provided the following instructions, among others: “[c]arrying of a handgun may be based upon actual possession or constructive possession[,]” and “[t]he word ‘carry’ may be defined in Indiana as ‘to have on one's person or keep with one and transport.’ ” Id. at 183. The jury found Goodwin guilty, and the trial court sentenced Goodwin to three and a half years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. Goodwin appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Goodwin challenges whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level 5 unlawful carrying of a handgun. Our standard for reviewing sufficiency claims is well settled:

For sufficiency of the evidence challenges, we consider only probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trier of fact. On sufficiency challenges, we will neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021) (citations omitted).

[6] To convict Goodwin, the State had to prove Goodwin knowingly or intentionally carried a handgun, had been convicted of a federal or state offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, and he was convicted of a felony within fifteen years before the date of the offense. Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1.5(b)(1), (e)(2)(B) (2022). Goodwin only challenges the carrying element.

[7] Our Supreme Court has previously interpreted carrying a handgun to mean possessing a handgun. See e.g., Henderson v. State, 715 N.E.2d 833, 835-36 (Ind. 1999). “A conviction for possession of a firearm may rest upon proof of either actual or constructive possession.” Smith v. State, 113 N.E.3d 1266, 1269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. “Actual possession is the direct physical control of the gun. Id.

[8] Here, there was ample evidence from which the jury could conclude that Goodwin was in direct physical control of the gun. Goodwin walked into his cousin's house, told the occupants that he shot himself in the hand, and an officer located him a few minutes later with a gunshot wound to his hand. And subsequent testing of the firearm recovered from Goodwin's car revealed his DNA on the trigger. A reasonable fact-finder could infer that Goodwin was in actual possession of the firearm at least long enough to transfer his DNA onto the trigger and shoot himself in the hand. This is sufficient to prove actual possession; thus, we need not determine whether Goodwin also constructively possessed the handgun.

[9] Still, Goodwin alleges the State failed to prove he “carried” a handgun as defined by the court in its jury instruction: that is, “to have on one's person or keep with one and transport.” Appellant's Br. pp. 7, 8 (citing Tr. Vol. II p. 183). Goodwin does not challenge the jury instructions themselves, so we do not address whether the trial court abused its discretion in providing the same. In any event, because the State proved actual possession, a reasonable juror could infer that Goodwin had the gun on his person at least while he was in actual possession of the gun. The remainder of Goodwin's argument is a request to reweigh evidence, which we cannot do. Hall, 177 N.E.3d at 1191. Because there is sufficient evidence to prove actual possession, the State sufficiently proved Goodwin unlawfully carried the firearm. The judgment is affirmed.

[10] Affirmed.

Scheele, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.