Joshua Jevon Murphy, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Joshua Jevon Murphy appeals his conviction for Level 2 felony dealing in a schedule I controlled substance, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support it. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 3, 2024, Grant Colestock, a civilian analyst for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD), was monitoring real-time cameras placed in high-crime areas in downtown Indianapolis. One of the cameras was a trailer camera that IMPD had “set up in [a] high drug use and dealing area[ ].” Tr. p. 116. While watching the feed from the trailer camera, Colestock saw Murphy make two “hand-to-hand transactions” which he believed to be narcotics deals. Id. at 129. Colestock sent footage of the transactions to IMPD Officer Christopher Kaleel, who was patrolling nearby. Four minutes later, Officer Kaleel stopped Murphy. Officer Kaleel smelled “MDMB-4emPINACA, commonly known by its street name as KD,” coming from Murphy's backpack. Id. at 129.

[3] After arresting Murphy, Officer Kaleel searched his backpack and found a gray drawstring bag containing “approximately 20 grams of KD,” a gallon-sized Ziploc bag that was about half-full containing “approximately 100 grams of KD,” and two cell phones. Id. at 139. In Murphy's pockets, Officer Kaleel also found $526 in cash. Murphy claimed that the KD in his backpack was for personal use.

[4] The State charged Murphy with Level 2 felony dealing in a schedule I controlled substance weighing at least 28 grams and alleged that he is a habitual offender. A jury trial was held in October 2025. The jury heard testimony from Detective Jacob Chestnut, who works in a specialized narcotics unit that focuses on finding drug dealers whose drugs result in death. He stated that from his experience with KD, “strict user[s]” typically do not have large quantities of KD on their person. Id. at 171. Detective Chestnut also stated that it is common for drug dealers to have large quantities of drugs in some kind of container or bag, multiple cell phones, and large quantities of cash.

[5] The jury found Murphy guilty of the Level 2 felony. Murphy waived his right to a jury trial on the habitual-offender enhancement, and the trial court found him to be a habitual offender. The court sentenced Murphy to 23 years in the Department of Correction.

[6] Murphy now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Murphy contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for dealing in a schedule I controlled substance. 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.

[8] To convict Murphy of Level 2 felony dealing in a schedule I controlled substance as charged here, the State had to prove that Murphy knowingly or intentionally delivered, or possessed with intent to deliver, at least 28 grams of a controlled substance classified in schedule I. Ind. Code §§ 35-48-4-2(a)(1)(C), (a)(2)(C), (f)(1); Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 37. Murphy argues that the State failed to prove that he delivered KD because police did not seize and test the substance that Murphy passed to others in the camera footage. But the record makes clear that Murphy was convicted of the Level 2 felony based on his possession of at least 28 grams of KD with intent to deliver it, not based on actual delivery of this amount. And as the State points out, it presented sufficient circumstantial evidence that Murphy possessed more than 28 grams of KD with the intent to deliver it.

[9] Possessing a large amount of narcotics is circumstantial evidence of intent to deliver—the more narcotics someone possesses, the stronger the inference that they intended to deliver it rather than consume it personally. Davis v. State, 791 N.E.2d 266, 270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Other examples of circumstantial evidence of intent to deliver include large amounts of currency, paraphernalia, and evidence of other drug transactions. McGuire v. State, 613 N.E.2d 861, 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), reh'g denied, trans. denied.

[10] Here, Murphy possessed a large quantity of KD—“approximately 20 grams” in the gray drawstring bag and “approximately 100 grams” in the Ziploc bag—as well as $526 in cash and two cell phones. At trial, Detective Chestnut testified that drug dealers commonly possess large quantities of drugs and cash and multiple cell phones. Although Murphy told Officer Kaleel that the KD in his backpack was for his personal use, Detective Chestnut explained that “strict user[s]” don't usually have large quantities of KD on their person. This evidence supports a reasonable inference that Murphy possessed the KD with intent to deliver it. We therefore affirm his conviction.

[11] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, J., and Foley, J., concur.