DAVIS v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Jordan Davis appeals his convictions for Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. He argues the evidence presented at his jury trial was insufficient to prove he constructively possessed smoking pipes and methamphetamine. Finding otherwise, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 18, 2025, Indiana State Police Trooper Jesse Crane was driving on I-69 when a vehicle pulled onto the highway and drove past him “at a pretty high rate of speed.” Transcript at 88. His radar showed the vehicle going 101 miles per hour, so he initiated a traffic stop. Trooper Crane made the vehicle's sole occupant get out, patted down the individual, and identified him as Davis. He noticed Davis had “general physical characteristics that would indicate methamphetamine use. Sunken cheeks, scabs, fresh scabs on the face, [and] dry mouth ․” Id. at 95.

[3] Davis gave Trooper Crane permission to search the vehicle and said there were no drugs in it; however, the trooper located two glass smoking pipes in the sunglasses holder on the roof above the rearview mirror. He then handcuffed and mirandized Davis. When Trooper Crane told Davis what he'd found, Davis repeated several times that there was “crystal” in one of the pipes and the other pipe's bowl was broken. State's Exhibit 2 at 5:15-5:48. Trooper Crane understood “crystal” to mean methamphetamine. Davis claimed he “forgot” the items were in the vehicle but acknowledged, “It's mine.” Id. at 5:16, 7:29. He told the trooper he had “smoked some [that] morning.” Id. at 7:41.

[4] While the evidence was being transported for testing, the intact pipe broke. Nevertheless, a forensic scientist tested “[t]he residue ․ inside the smoking device” and determined it contained methamphetamine. Tr. at 139.

[5] On April 21, the State charged Davis with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine ¹ and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.² The State later filed a notice of its intent to seek a habitual offender sentence enhancement. While Davis was incarcerated in the Greene County Jail awaiting trial, he sent various messages through the jail's “Chirp System[,]” which enables inmates to text, subject to monitoring. Id. at 128. In one message, Davis said “old paraphe[r]n[a]lia” was found because he was “an idiot [who] didn[’]t clean [his] vehicle out.” Exhibits at 19. In another, he acknowledged “meth residue” was discovered. Id. at 20. A jury heard the foregoing evidence at trial and found Davis guilty of Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Davis was also charged with Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended, and the jury found him not guilty of that charge. Davis then admitted he was a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced him to serve an aggregate term of six and a half years in the Department of Correction.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Davis seeks reversal of his convictions on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to show he “constructively possessed the pipes and residue methamphetamine[.]” Appellant's Brief at 5. “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) (quoting Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), reh'g denied, cert. denied). In our review, “we consider only the evidence that supports the jury's determination, not evidence that might undermine it.” Id. We will affirm “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.” Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015).

[7] To prove Davis committed the possession crimes, the State had to show he knowingly or intentionally possessed the pipes and methamphetamine. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1(a) (2025); Ind. Code § 35-48-4-8.3 (b)(1) (2025) (amended effective July 1, 2025). A person acts knowingly if he is aware of a high probability he is engaging in conduct when he does so. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b) (2025). He acts intentionally if it is his conscious objective to engage in the conduct. I.C. § 35-41-2-2(a).

[8] Possession “can be either actual or constructive.” Sargent v. State, 27 N.E.3d 729, 732-33 (Ind. 2015). “Actual possession occurs when a person has direct physical control over the item.” Id. at 733. “A person constructively possesses contraband 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.” Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). A jury may infer the defendant had the capability to maintain dominion and control over contraband found on premises in which the defendant has a possessory interest, even if that interest is not exclusive. Id. It may make the same inference as to the defendant's intent, but if his possessory interest in the premises is not exclusive, “the State must support this second inference with additional circumstances pointing to the defendant's knowledge of the presence and the nature of the item.” Id. at 174-75 (providing a non-exhaustive list of evidence that can support intent, including “a defendant's incriminating statements” and “the item's proximity to the defendant”).

[9] Here, the evidence indicates the vehicle belonged to Davis, and he was its sole occupant when Trooper Crane found the pipes and methamphetamine in it. Thus, Davis’ exclusive possessory interest in the vehicle was sufficient to show he had the capability and intent to exercise dominion and control over the pipes and methamphetamine. See Ross v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1287, 1291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (concluding the same), trans. denied. Moreover, when the trooper confronted Davis about what he'd found in the sunglasses holder, Davis acknowledged one of the pipes contained “crystal” and that the items were his. Davis also admitted he'd smoked methamphetamine earlier that morning. Based on these facts, the jury had ample evidence to conclude that Davis constructively possessed the pipes and methamphetamine. His argument that some of his own statements indicated he “had entirely forgotten about the pipe[s] and meth residue[,]” and thus had abandoned the items or at least “had no intention of possessing” them, is merely a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Appellant's Br. at 8, 9; see Pimentel v. State, 181 N.E.3d 474, 484 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (finding sufficient evidence to prove constructive possession and that the defendant's “alternate explanations” were an impermissible request to reweigh the evidence), trans. denied. Accordingly, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to support Davis’ convictions.

Conclusion

[10] We affirm Davis’ convictions for Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1(a) (2025).

2.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-8.3(b) (2025) (amended effective July 1, 2025).

DeBoer, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.