Nicholas Dean Lawton, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Nicholas Dean Lawton appeals his conviction for Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to prove constructive possession. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 3, 2023, the Noblesville Police Department executed a search warrant at the apartment where Lawton and his long-term girlfriend, Destiny Brock, lived. Police recovered digital scales, hypodermic needles, drug paraphernalia, and methamphetamine. The methamphetamine was found in a drawer in Brock's dresser, which was in the bedroom she shared with Lawton. See Tr. Vol. 2 p. 111; Ex. 21. Lawton was interviewed by police and said that he uses methamphetamine, that he had needles in his desk in the bedroom, that he bought methamphetamine that morning and had used it all, and that he and Brock “share” methamphetamine. Ex. 29 at 11:36.

[3] The State charged Lawton with Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine and Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe.¹ A jury trial was held in October 2025. Brock, who testified for the defense, claimed that the methamphetamine found in her drawer, the needles, and the paraphernalia were hers.² On cross-examination by the State, however, Brock admitted that she and Lawton shared the methamphetamine found in her dresser drawer:

Q: Okay. When asked, [Lawton] responded that you shared meth, you and he. Is that a true statement?

A: Yes.

Q: So you sharing that, what does that mean? How is it your meth versus his meth if you're sharing it?

A: It's not. It's just shared.

Q: So when you say that this meth was yours, was this the shared meth that we're talking about then?

A: Yeah.

Tr. p. 118 (emphasis added).

[4] During closing argument, defense counsel argued that the evidence didn't establish that Lawton possessed the methamphetamine because it was found in Brock's dresser drawer. The State argued that it didn't matter that the methamphetamine was found in Brock's dresser drawer because she admitted that she and Lawton shared it. See id. at 134; see also id. at 141 (“And when asked, she tried to say it was just hers, but she eventually relented and said, yes, we share the methamphetamine. When you share it, it's both of yours. It doesn't matter that it's in her drawer.”). The jury found Lawton guilty of both charges, and the trial court sentenced him to five years in the Department of Correction.

[5] Lawton now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Lawton contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for possession of methamphetamine. When reviewing sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015). We will consider only the evidence supporting the conviction and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. Id. A conviction will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[7] Lawton argues that the State failed to prove that he constructively possessed the methamphetamine found in Brock's dresser drawer located in their shared bedroom. “A person constructively possesses [an item] when the person has (1) the capability to maintain dominion and control over the item; and (2) the intent to maintain dominion and control over it.” Sargent v. State, 27 N.E.3d 729, 732-33 (Ind. 2015) (quotation omitted).

[8] To prove the capability element, the State must demonstrate that the defendant is able to reduce the controlled substance to his personal possession. Goliday v. State, 708 N.E.2d 4, 6 (Ind. 1999). “To prove the intent element, the State must demonstrate the defendant's knowledge of the presence of the contraband.” Id. When the defendant has exclusive possession of the premises where the contraband is found, an inference is permitted that he knew of its presence. Collins v. State, 822 N.E.2d 214, 222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. But where, as here, possession of the premises is nonexclusive, the inference is not permitted absent some additional circumstances indicating knowledge of the presence of the contraband. Id. The “additional circumstances” have been shown by various means: (1) incriminating statements by the defendant, (2) attempted flight or furtive gestures, (3) a drug-manufacturing setting, (4) proximity of the contraband to the defendant, (5) contraband in plain view, and (6) the mingling of the contraband with other items owned by the defendant. Id. These additional circumstances are non-exhaustive; ultimately, the question is whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude from the evidence that the defendant had knowledge of the contraband. Johnson v. State, 59 N.E.3d 1071, 1074 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Notably, a drug can be possessed jointly by the defendant and another person without any showing that the defendant had actual physical control of the drug. Goodner v. State, 685 N.E.2d 1058, 1061 (Ind. 1997); Armour v. State, 762 N.E.2d 208, 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.

[9] Here, a reasonable factfinder could conclude from the evidence that Lawton constructively possessed the methamphetamine. Lawton admitted using methamphetamine, buying methamphetamine earlier that day, and sharing methamphetamine with Brock. In addition, the methamphetamine was found in their shared bedroom, and Brock testified that she and Lawton shared the methamphetamine found in her dresser drawer. Although Lawton points out that he told police that he used “his meth” earlier that day, that is a request for us to reweigh the evidence, which we don't do. The evidence is sufficient to prove that Lawton constructively and jointly possessed the methamphetamine found in the bedroom he shared with Brock. We therefore affirm his conviction for possession of methamphetamine.

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Lawton was charged with three other offenses, but one was dismissed before trial and the jury found him not guilty on the other two.

2.   Brock was charged with Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine and two other offenses in connection with this incident. See Cause No. 29D01-2311-F5-8002. In June 2024, she pled guilty to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, and the other charges were dismissed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Scheele, J., concur.