Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-479 | May 13, 2015 Page 1 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 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

Timothy J. Burns

Indianapolis, IN

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Katherine Modesitt Cooper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Valene Miller,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 13, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A04-1410-CR-479

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable David E. Cook, 

Judge

Cause No. 49F07-1404-CM-20367

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-479 | May 13, 2015 Page 2 of 6

Statement of the Case

[1] Valene Miller appeals her conviction for possession of marijuana, as a Class A 

misdemeanor. Miller presents one issue for our review, namely, whether the 

State presented sufficient evidence to support her conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 19, 2014, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”)

dispatched officers to a residence in Indianapolis (“the home”), which Miller 

shared with her boyfriend, Darnell White, regarding a domestic disturbance 

between Miller and White. Miller and White both had signed the lease for the 

home, and four other individuals lived with them but were not present when

officers arrived. Initially, Miller agreed to leave the home, which the officers 

believed resolved the disturbance, and the officers left. Within minutes, 

however, IMPD received a dispatch to the home, again regarding a domestic 

disturbance between Miller and White.

[3] The same officers responded to the home the second time, and, when they did, 

they found White sitting outside. White reported that Miller had destroyed 

several items of property after the officers left the first time. He stated that 

Miller was inside the home, and he gave the officers consent to enter. When 

the officers did so, Officer David Miedema saw a small bag of marijuana 

located on the floor of the home, just inside the front door. Officer Miedema 

then proceeded through the home with another officer and found Miller at the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-479 | May 13, 2015 Page 3 of 6

home’s rear. Miller was agitated, so the officers handcuffed her for officer 

safety and removed her from the home to speak with her.

[4] While speaking with Miller, the officers suggested to her that she be taken to the 

hospital, but Miller refused. Instead, Miller stated that she would rather go to 

jail and, at the same time, identified the bag of marijuana as belonging to her. 

Thus, Officer Miedema placed Miller under arrest, and, on April 20, the State 

charged Miller with possession of marijuana, as a Class A misdemeanor.

[5] The trial court held Miller’s bench trial on September 23, 2014, at which White 

testified on Miller’s behalf that the marijuana actually belonged to another of 

the home’s residents, who had dropped the bag and fled when the police 

arrived. However, at the conclusion of the trial, the court convicted Miller as 

charged. The court then sentenced Miller to 365 days in the Marion County 

Jail, which it suspended. The court also ordered Miller to report to probation 

for 180 days; to complete thirty hours of community service and twelve 

substance-abuse classes; and to pay a $100 fine and court costs. This appeal 

ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Miller contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her 

conviction. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is 

well-settled. Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. 2000).

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine only the 

probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-479 | May 13, 2015 Page 4 of 6

verdict. We do not assess witness credibility, nor do we reweigh 

the evidence to determine if it was sufficient to support a 

conviction. Under our appellate system, those roles are reserved 

for the finder of fact. Instead, we consider only the evidence 

most favorable to the trial court ruling and affirm the conviction 

unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the 

crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Pillow v. State, 986 N.E.2d 343, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citations and 

quotation marks omitted).

[7] To convict Miller of possession of marijuana, as a Class A misdemeanor, the 

State was required to prove that Miller knowingly or intentionally possessed 

marijuana. Ind. Code. § 35-48-4-11(1). To prove the possession element, the 

State can show either: (1) that a defendant actually possessed contraband; or 

(2) that a defendant constructively possessed contraband. See Gray v. State, 957 

N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011).

[8] Here, the State sought to prove that Miller constructively possessed marijuana, 

which Miller asserts that the State failed to do. A person constructively 

possesses contraband when the person has both the intent and capability to 

maintain dominion and control over the item. Id. Where the person charged 

has an exclusive possessory interest in the property where the contraband was 

found, “a trier of fact may infer that a defendant had the capability to maintain 

dominion and control over the contraband from the simple fact” of the 

defendant’s exclusive possessory interest in the premises. Id. However, more is 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-479 | May 13, 2015 Page 5 of 6

required where a defendant’s possessory interest in the premises is not 

exclusive. See id. As our supreme court stated in Gray:

A trier of fact may likewise infer that a defendant had the intent 

to maintain dominion and control over contraband from the 

defendant’s possessory interest in the premises, even when that 

possessory interest is not exclusive. When that possessory 

interest is not exclusive, however, 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. We have previously identified some possible examples, 

including (1) a defendant’s incriminating statements; (2) a 

defendant’s attempting to leave or making furtive gestures; (3) the 

location of contraband like drugs in settings suggesting 

manufacturing; (4) the item’s proximity to the defendant; (5) the 

location of contraband within the defendant’s plain view; and (6) 

the mingling of contraband with other items the defendant owns.

957 N.E.2d at 174-75 (internal citations omitted).

[9] Miller does not dispute that she had a nonexclusive possessory interest in the 

home but contends that the State failed to support “this second inference with 

additional circumstances.” Id. We disagree. The evidence demonstrates that 

Miller made the incriminating statement that the marijuana belonged to her. 

Further, Officer Miedema found the marijuana on the floor of the home, which 

Miller had leased, in plain view of anyone inside. Officers also located Miller

inside of the home, while White was outside and while no one else was present 

at the home. These facts support the inference that Miller had constructive 

possession of the marijuana.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-479 | May 13, 2015 Page 6 of 6

[10] Despite this evidence, Miller asserts that “[h]er blurted[-]out statement does not 

amount to an incriminating statement [in] view [of] the totality of the[] 

circumstances” and that the State failed to prove any other circumstances. 

Appellant’s Br. at 5. Instead, in essence, Miller requests that we credit her 

defense that the marijuana belonged to another resident of the home. However, 

both of these arguments amount to requests for us to reweigh the evidence, 

which we will not do. Therefore, we hold that the evidence is sufficient to 

support Miller’s conviction, and we affirm the trial court.

[11] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Friedlander, J., concur.