Ke'Jioun Johnson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 21 2020, 10:10 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark K. Leeman Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Logansport, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Steven J. Hosler
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ke’jioun Johnson, December 21, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-1261
v. Appeal from the Cass Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable James K.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Muehlhausen, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
09D01-1906-F6-227
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1261 | December 21, 2020 Page 1 of 7
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Ke’Jioun Johnson (Johnson) appeals his conviction for
possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor, I.C. § 35-48-4-11(a)(1); -(b).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Johnson presents this court with one issue on appeal, which we restate as:
Whether the State presented sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to
support Johnson’s constructive possession for marijuana.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] During 2017 and 2018, Johnson and Akielah Didomenico (Didomenico) were
in a romantic relationship and had a son together. They lived in Logansport,
Indiana, where they jointly rented a residence, until the relationship ended in
May 2019. On Father’s Day 2019, Johnson invited Didomenico and their son
to join him at a friend’s cookout. After the cookout, Johnson and Didomenico
returned to the residence, where they were joined by a mutual friend, Kristi
Hoff (Hoff).
[5] Johnson, Didomenico, their son, and Hoff assembled in the living room where
Johnson’s vape was on the living room table, next to a bag of marijuana. After
Johnson took out a hand-rolled cigarette, Johnson and Didomenico began to
argue because Didomenico did not want him to smoke in front of their young
child and told him to smoke in a different room. Johnson told Didomenico to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1261 | December 21, 2020 Page 2 of 7
shut up and left the living room. While following Johnson into the hallway,
Didomenico knocked the cigarette out of his hand. Johnson became angry,
entered the bedroom at the back of the house and kicked out a window. At that
point, Hoff called 911.
[6] Johnson left the bedroom and walked towards the front door. While he was
attempting to leave the house, Didomenico shoved him twice in the hallway, at
which point Johnson shoved Didomenico away from him, causing her to fall
towards a table in the living room and then into a toy basket. Didomenico got
up, shoved Johnson again, and broke a fingernail during this altercation.
[7] Officer Joe Schlosser (Officer Schlosser) of the Logansport Police Department
responded to the 911 call. When he arrived at the residence, he noticed a bag of
leafy green substance, which he identified as marijuana, sitting next to
Johnson’s vape on the living room table. He also located a hand-rolled
marijuana cigarette in the hallway. Officer Schlosser spoke with Johnson, who
had been stopped in his car a short distance away by another officer. While
speaking with Johnson, Officer Schlosser noticed a change in his behavior when
he questioned Johnson about the marijuana found at the residence. While
Johnson was at first relaxed and calm, he became nervous with a change in his
voice and tone when the presence of marijuana was brought up. Johnson
denied the marijuana was his.
[8] On June 17, 2019, the State filed an Information, charging Johnson with
domestic battery, a Level 6 felony, and possession of marijuana, which was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1261 | December 21, 2020 Page 3 of 7
enhanced to a Class A misdemeanor based on a prior conviction for the same
offense. On February 20, 2020, the trial court conducted a bench trial. At the
close of the evidence, the trial court found Johnson guilty of possession of
marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor, but acquitted him of domestic battery.
On June 22, 2020, during a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced
Johnson to 365 days with 305 days suspended to probation.
[9] Johnson now appeals. Additional facts will be provided if necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[10] Johnson contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt to sustain his conviction for Class A misdemeanor possession
of marijuana. Our standard of review of sufficiency of the evidence claims is
well-settled: When we review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, we consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences
supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). It is not
our role as an appellate court to assess witness credibility or to weigh the
evidence. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder
could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[11] To sustain Johnson’s conviction, the State was required to establish Johnson
knowingly or intentionally possessed marijuana. I.C. § 35-48-4-11(a)(1). To
elevate the charge to a Class A misdemeanor, the State was also required to
prove that Johnson had a prior conviction for a drug offense. I.C. § 35-48-4-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1261 | December 21, 2020 Page 4 of 7
11(b). Here, Johnson only challenges the possession prong of the offense and
not the enhancement of the charge.
[12] We have long recognized that a conviction for possession of contraband may be
founded upon actual or constructive possession. Holmes v. State, 785 N.E.2d
658, 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Constructive possession is established by
showing that the defendant has the intent and capability to maintain dominion
and control over the contraband. Id. In cases where the accused has exclusive
possession of the premises on which the contraband is found, an inference is
permitted that he or she knew of the presence of contraband and was capable of
controlling it. Id. However, where, as here, the possession of the premises is
not-exclusive, the inference is not permitted absent some additional
circumstances indicating knowledge of the presence of the contraband and the
ability to control it. Id. Among the recognized “additional circumstances” are:
(1) incriminating statements by the defendant; (2) attempted flight or furtive
gestures; (3) a drug manufacturing setting; (4) proximity of the defendant to the
contraband; (5) the contraband is in plain view; and (6) location of the
contraband is in close proximity to items owned by the defendant. Id. To show
capability to maintain dominion and control over contraband, the State must
prove that the defendant is able to reduce the contraband to the defendant’s
personal possession. Id.
[13] First turning to the capability prong of constructive possession, the evidence
reflects that the marijuana was located on the living room table where Johnson
had been sitting and near Johnson’s vape. Testimony indicates that Johnson
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1261 | December 21, 2020 Page 5 of 7
held the hand-rolled marijuana cigarette in his hand and took it with him in the
hallway when the argument started. Accordingly, Johnson was capable of
maintaining dominion and control over the marijuana.
[14] With respect to the intent prong, we note that although Johnson no longer lived
in the residence, his name was still on the lease and therefore he maintained a
possessory interest in the premises. However, as his interest was non-exclusive,
we turn to additional circumstances to establish constructive possession. The
record reflects that there was a mingling of contraband with other items owned
by Johnson, as the marijuana was in close proximity to Johnson’s vape on the
coffee table. See Gee v. State, 810 N.E.2d 338, 343 (Ind. 2004) (A mingling of
contraband with other items owned by the defendant so that the contraband
and personal property are in close proximity is an additional circumstance
demonstrating the defendant likely knew of the presence and character of the
controlled substance and intended to possess the substance). The marijuana
was found on a table in a common area where it was unlikely to go unnoticed
by the adults in the residence. Furthermore, while walking into the hallway
when the argument started, Johnson was holding a hand-rolled cigarette which
Officer Schlosser later recognized as a hand-rolled marijuana cigarette. Finally,
Johnson, when speaking with Officer Schlosser about the discovered marijuana,
displayed anxiousness and changed the tone of his voice. See, e.g., Washington v.
State, 902 N.E.2d 280, 288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (defendant was found to
constructively possess marijuana when, during questioning, defendant appeared
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1261 | December 21, 2020 Page 6 of 7
nervous, refused to make eye contact, and attempted to blame his nephew),
trans. denied.
[15] Based on the totality of the evidence before us, we conclude that the State
presented sufficient evidence of reasonable doubt to establish that Johnson had
the intent and capability to maintain dominion and control over the marijuana
located in the residence and therefore constructively possessed the contraband.
CONCLUSION
[16] Based on the foregoing, we hold that the State presented sufficient evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain Johnson’s conviction.
[17] Affirmed.
[18] Najam, J. and Crone, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1261 | December 21, 2020 Page 7 of 7