Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-757 | September 20, 2019 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

Kelly Starling

Marion County Public Defender Agency 

Appellate Division

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Samantha M. Sumcad

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bryant Edwards,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff.

September 20, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-757

Appeal from the Marion Superior

Court

The Honorable Linda E. Brown,

Judge

The Honorable Steven J. Rubick, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G10-1805-CM-17445

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-757 | September 20, 2019 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Bryant Edwards was charged with and convicted of Class A misdemeanor 

carrying a handgun without a license after he was observed sitting in the 

driver’s seat of a vehicle with a handgun stuck between his seat and the center 

console, resting against his leg. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is 

insufficient to prove that he possessed the handgun. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 29, 2018, Edwards’s girlfriend, Christy Mays, parked her vehicle 

outside Davion Adams’s residence. Edwards, who claimed not to be feeling 

well, remained in the vehicle, sitting alone in the driver’s seat. At some point 

after Edwards had been sitting alone in the vehicle for a few hours, Adams 

arrived at the residence and went to sit in the passenger seat of the vehicle with 

Edwards. Shortly thereafter, police arrived at the residence to serve a warrant 

on Adams for an unrelated case. 

[3] Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Dustin Carmack approached the 

passenger side of the vehicle and observed through the open window that there 

was a handgun wedged between the driver’s seat and the center console. The 

handgun was resting against Edwards’s leg and had an extended magazine that 

protruded upwards approximately six inches. 

[4] Edwards remained calm while the officers struggled to arrest Adams. He 

complied with the officer’s requests and was handcuffed without incident. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-757 | September 20, 2019 Page 3 of 6

During a subsequent search of the vehicle, officers found a pill bottle belonging 

to Edwards and items belonging to Mays in the center console of the vehicle. 

Mays indicated that there had been no firearm placed between the driver’s seat 

and the center console of her vehicle when she drove it to Adams’s residence 

earlier that day. 

[5] On May 31, 2018, the State charged Edwards with Class A misdemeanor 

carrying a handgun without a license and Class B misdemeanor possession of 

marijuana. Following the State’s presentation of evidence at the November 20, 

2018 bench trial, Edwards moved for an involuntary dismissal of both counts 

pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 41(B). The trial court granted the motion with 

regard to the possession-of-marijuana charge. The trial court then bifurcated 

the trial and requested that the parties submit briefs on the issue of whether the 

State had met its burden in proving the Class A misdemeanor handgun charge. 

After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the trial court denied Edwards’s motion. 

The trial court subsequently found Edwards guilty of Class A misdemeanor 

carrying a handgun without a license and sentenced him 356 days. The trial 

court awarded Edwards credit for time served, suspended the remainder of the 

sentence, and imposed ninety days of non-reporting probation. 

Discussion and Decision

[6] Edwards contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for 

Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. Our standard of 

review for challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence is well-settled. Bell v. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-757 | September 20, 2019 Page 4 of 6

State, 31 N.E.3d 495, 499 (Ind. 2015). “We do not reweigh the evidence or 

assess the credibility of witnesses in reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence 

claim.” Id. Conflicting evidence is considered “in the light most favorable to 

the trial court’s finding.” Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). This is 

because the factfinder, and not the appellate court, “is obliged to determine not 

only whom to believe, but also what portions of conflicting testimony to 

believe, and is not required to believe a witness’s testimony even when it is 

uncontradicted.” Perry v. State, 78 N.E.3d 1, 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (internal 

quotation and brackets omitted). On appeal, we “look to the evidence and 

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that support the verdict and will affirm 

the conviction if there is probative evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder 

could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Bell, 31 

N.E.3d at 499. 

[7] In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction, Edwards 

argues that the State failed to prove that he possessed the handgun. The 

Indiana Supreme Court has held that possession may be either actual or 

constructive. Gray, 957 N.E.2d at 174. “Actual possession occurs when a 

person has direct physical control over the item.” Henderson v. State, 715 

N.E.2d 833, 835 (Ind. 1999). “Constructive possession occurs when somebody 

has the intent and capability to maintain dominion and control over the item.” 

Id. (internal quotation omitted). 

When constructive possession is asserted, the State must 

demonstrate the defendant’s knowledge of the contraband. This 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-757 | September 20, 2019 Page 5 of 6

knowledge may be inferred from either the exclusive dominion 

and control over the premise containing the contraband or, if the 

control is non-exclusive, evidence of additional circumstances 

pointing to the defendant’s knowledge of the presence of the 

contraband.

Woods v. State, 471 N.E.2d 691, 694 (Ind. 1984) (internal citations omitted).

Proof of dominion and control of contraband has been found 

through a variety of means: (1) incriminating statements by the 

defendant, (2) attempted flight or furtive gestures, (3) location of 

substances like drugs in settings that suggest manufacturing, (4) 

proximity of the contraband to the defendant, (5) location of the 

contraband within the defendant’s plain view, and (6) the 

mingling of the contraband with other items owned by the 

defendant. 

Henderson, 715 N.E.2d at 836 (internal citation omitted). 

[8] In this case, the State presented evidence that the handgun was in close 

proximity to Edwards, that the handgun was located within Edwards’s plain 

view, and that it was co-mingled with other items belonging to Edwards. It is 

undisputed that the handgun was in close proximity to Edwards and Officer 

Carmack testified that it was touching Edwards’s thigh. In addition to its close 

proximity to Edwards, the handgun was in plain view with its extended 

magazine protruding upwards approximately six inches. Further, while it is 

undisputed that the vehicle in which Edwards was sitting belonged to his 

girlfriend, a pill bottle belonging to Edwards was found near the handgun in the 

center console of the vehicle. These facts are sufficient to support the inference 

that Edwards had knowledge of and constructively possessed the handgun. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-757 | September 20, 2019 Page 6 of 6

Further, to the extent that Edwards argues that the evidence demonstrates that 

Adams admitted that the handgun belonged to him, the evidence also 

demonstrates that Adams denied that the handgun belonged to him. The trial 

court, acting as the trier-of-fact, was in the best position to judge the credibility 

of the evidence and determine which statements to believe. See Perry, 78 

N.E.3d at 8.

[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.