Bernard Johnson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Oct 07 2015, 8:56 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Donald J. Berger Gregory F. Zoeller
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Karl Scharnberg
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Bernard Johnson, Jr., October 7, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
71A04-1502-CR-60
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Elizabeth C.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Hurley, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71D08-1310-FC-226
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1502-CR-60 | October 7, 2015 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Bernard Johnson appeals his conviction for Class C felony possession of
cocaine. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Johnson raises one issue, which we restate as whether there was sufficient
evidence to support his conviction.
Facts
[3] On October 2, 2013, South Bend police officers were pursuing a suspect when
they encountered Johnson having an argument with a woman. The argument
escalated, and police intervened. Johnson did not cooperate with the police,
and they had to forcibly restrain him and eventually handcuff him. During this
encounter, a crowd gathered, and Johnson claimed to have been shot. Two
officers separately conducted pat down searches for weapons before putting
Johnson, who had not been shot, in a police car and transporting him to the
jail. When he arrived at the jail, a more thorough search was conducted, and a
baggie containing 3.30 grams of cocaine was found in the pocket of basketball
shorts Johnson was wearing under his pants.
[4] The State charged Johnson with Class C felony possession of cocaine and Class
A misdemeanor domestic battery. The battery charge was later amended to
Class B misdemeanor battery. A jury found Johnson guilty of the possession of
cocaine charge and not guilty of the battery charge. Johnson now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1502-CR-60 | October 7, 2015 Page 2 of 4
Analysis
[5] Johnson argues there is insufficient evidence to support his robbery conviction.
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses. Bailey v. State, 979
N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012). We view the evidence—even if conflicting—and
all reasonable inferences drawn from it in a light most favorable to the
conviction and affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value
supporting each element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact
could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[6] Johnson argues that, because the cocaine was not discovered during the pat
down searches conducted before he was transported to the jail and he
immediately denied the cocaine was his, the State did not prove that he
knowingly possessed it. “A person engages in conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when he
engages in the conduct, he is aware of the high probability that he is doing so.’”
Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b).
[7] The officers who conducted the pat down searches testified that they patted
down Johnson’s outer clothing to look for weapons before transporting him to
jail. One officer explained that, because of Johnson’s behavior and the crowd,
he was not as thorough in the pat down search as he usually is. The other
officer testified that he did not go through every pocket and that he was looking
for large, hard weapons. The jail officer testified about conducting a more
detailed search upon Johnson’s arrival at the jail. She also stated that the
cocaine was found in a pocket of shorts Johnson was wearing under his pants.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1502-CR-60 | October 7, 2015 Page 3 of 4
[8] It was for the jury to assess the witnesses’ testimony, including Johnson’s claim
that someone else had put the cocaine in his pocket. There is sufficient
evidence to establish that Johnson knowingly possessed the cocaine.
Conclusion
[9] There was sufficient evidence to support Johnson’s conviction for Class C
felony possession of cocaine. We affirm.
[10] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Najam, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1502-CR-60 | October 7, 2015 Page 4 of 4