Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A04-1408-CR-368 | February 3, 2015 Page 1 of 4

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

J. Grant Tucker

Jones Patterson & Tucker

Columbus, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Jesse R. Drum

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Travis J. Monroe,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

February 3, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

03A04-1408-CR-368

Appeal from the Bartholomew 

Superior Court.

The Honorable Kathleen Tighe 

Coriden, Judge.

Cause No. 03D02-1212-CM-6450

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A04-1408-CR-368 | February 3, 2015 Page 2 of 4

[1] Travis Monroe appeals his conviction for Possession of Paraphernalia,1 a class 

A misdemeanor. He argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the 

conviction. Finding sufficient evidence, we affirm. 

Facts

[2] On November 30, 2012, Monroe was a passenger in James Rush’s truck. 

Bartholomew County Sheriff’s Officer Kraig Weisner (Officer Kraig) stopped

Rush for speeding and failing to signal while changing lanes. Rush was driving 

with a suspended license and was arrested for driving while intoxicated.

[3] Officer Kraig asked Monroe to exit the truck, and, when he did so, the officer

noticed a corncob pipe on the floorboard of the vehicle where Monroe’s feet 

had been. Officer Kraig noticed that the pipe smelt of burnt marijuana. At this 

point, Officer Kris Weisner (Officer Kris) had arrived at the scene to assist with 

the traffic stop. Officer Kraig gave him the pipe to field test; it tested positive 

for marijuana. Officer Kraig testified at trial that he then asked Monroe who 

the pipe belonged to and that Monroe stated that it was his. He then asked 

Monroe what was in the pipe; Monroe told him it was tobacco. Officer Kraig 

testified that when he asked him what type of tobacco, to which Monroe 

responded, “you know what type it is, something to that affect.” Tr. p. 8. 

 

1

Indiana Code § 35-48-4-8.3(a)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A04-1408-CR-368 | February 3, 2015 Page 3 of 4

[4] On December 18, 2012, the State charged Monroe with class A misdemeanor 

possession of paraphernalia. Monroe’s bench trial took place on July 2, 2014, 

and the trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to one year in the 

Bartholomew County Jail, suspended to probation. Monroe now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision 

[5] Monroe argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for 

possession of paraphernalia. When reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of 

the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the 

witnesses. Bond v. State, 925 N.E.2d 773, 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Rather, we 

consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable 

inferences drawn therefrom, and we will affirm if the evidence and those 

inferences constitute substantial evidence of probative value to support the 

verdict. Id. Reversal is appropriate only when a reasonable trier of fact would 

not be able to form inferences as to each material element of the offense. Id.

[6] In order to show that Monroe was in possession of paraphernalia, the State was 

required to prove that Monroe possessed a raw material, an instrument, a 

device, or other object that he intended to use to introduce a controlled 

substance into his body. Indiana Code § 35-48-4-8.3(a)(1). Possession may be 

actual or constructive. Trigg v. State, 725 N.E.2d 446, 449 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). 

Constructive possession is “an intent and capability to maintain control and 

dominion” over the illicit items. Crabtree v. State, 479 N.E.2d 70, 75 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 1985). When, as here, a person does not have exclusive possession of the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A04-1408-CR-368 | February 3, 2015 Page 4 of 4

premises, mere presence is not sufficient proof of intent to possess. Id. Rather, 

the inference of intent must be bolstered by showing additional circumstances, 

such as: proximity to contraband in plain view, attempted flight, defendant’s 

admission of ownership of contraband, and furtive conduct. Id. 

[7] Monroe maintains that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support a 

finding that he had constructive possession of the pipe. Here, although Monroe 

did not have exclusive possession of the truck, additional circumstances beyond 

his mere presence bolstered the inference that he had the intent to possess the 

paraphernalia. The pipe was in plain view and in close proximity to Monroe. 

It was found directly where his feet had been. Tr. p. 10. Moreover, both 

Officer Kraig and Officer Kris testified that Monroe admitted to them that the 

pipe belonged to him. Tr. p. 8, 11. Therefore, we find that there was sufficient 

evidence to convict Monroe of possession of paraphernalia. 

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

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