Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2101 | April 17, 2019 Page 1 of 7

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

Kurt A. Young

Nashville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew F. Kite

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Alicia T. Taylor,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 17, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2101

Appeal from the Brown Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Judith A. Stewart, 

Judge

The Honorable Frank M. Nardi, 

Magistrate/Judge Pro Tempore

Trial Court Cause No.

07C01-1608-CM-351

Friedlander, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2101 | April 17, 2019 Page 2 of 7

[1] Alicia T. Taylor appeals her conviction of possession of a controlled substance, 

a Class A misdemeanor,

1

alleging there is insufficient evidence to support her 

conviction. We affirm.

[2] On the evening of August 12, 2016, the Brown County Sheriff’s Department 

received two calls regarding possible drug activity at a local campground, with 

specific mention of a white Ford Explorer. Deputy Joshua Stargell and 

Sergeant Southerland went to the area to observe. Deputy Stargell saw a white 

Ford Explorer with a female driver exit the campground area. Using the 

computer in his vehicle, the Deputy conducted a search of BMV records using 

the Explorer’s license plate number and learned that the owner of the vehicle 

was Taylor and that her license was suspended. After confirming the

information with dispatch, Deputy Stargell initiated a traffic stop.

[3] Once the Explorer was stopped, the Deputy approached the driver and 

confirmed that it was Taylor and that she knew her license was suspended. 

When asked, Taylor also confirmed that the Explorer was not insured. Deputy 

Stargell then determined the identity of Taylor’s passenger, that he was not 

licensed to drive, and that he did not have any ownership interest in the 

Explorer. Based on these circumstances, the Deputy called a tow truck to tow 

the Explorer, and Sergeant Southerland performed a vehicle inventory. Prior to 

the search, Taylor was given the opportunity to remove any valuables from the 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-48-4-7(a) (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2101 | April 17, 2019 Page 3 of 7

Explorer, and she retrieved her purse. When Deputy Stargell looked in 

Taylor’s purse, he found a digital scale, which Taylor said she was holding for 

someone.

[4] During the vehicle inventory, Sergeant Southerland found two pills in 

cellophane wrap near the center console and another single pill on the 

passenger side floorboard. The two pills in cellophane were identified as 

acetaminophen/oxycodone, and the single pill was identified as alprazolam. 

Deputy Stargell asked Taylor if the pills belonged to her. Taylor replied that the 

pills were not hers and that she did not know to whom they belonged.

[5] The State charged Taylor with Count 1 possession of a controlled substance

(oxycodone), a Class A misdemeanor;2Count 2 possession of a controlled 

substance (alprazolam), a Class A misdemeanor;

3

and Count 3 driving while 

suspended, a Class A misdemeanor.4 Following a bench trial, Taylor was 

found guilty of Counts 1 and 3. The court sentenced Taylor to concurrent 

terms of 365 days in community corrections with all but ten days suspended

and 355 days of probation. Taylor now appeals.

 

2

Ind. Code § 35-48-4-7(a).

3

Id.

4

Ind. Code § 9-24-19-2 (2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2101 | April 17, 2019 Page 4 of 7

[6] Taylor contends there is insufficient evidence to sustain her conviction of 

possession of oxycodone under the theory of constructive possession.5 When

we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the 

evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Sandleben v. State, 29 N.E.3d

126 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. Instead, we consider only the evidence 

most favorable to the judgment and any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. 

Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a reasonable 

factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the 

judgment will not be disturbed. Labarr v. State, 36 N.E.3d 501 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2015). Further, circumstantial evidence alone may support a conviction. Green 

v. State, 808 N.E.2d 137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

[7] Possession of an item may be either actual or constructive. Massey v. State, 816 

N.E.2d 979 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Because Taylor did not actually possess the 

oxycodone when it was found in the Explorer, the State was required to prove 

that she constructively possessed it. A person has constructive possession of an 

item when the person has both (1) the capability to maintain dominion and 

control over the item and (2) the intent to maintain dominion and control over 

the item. Causey v. State, 808 N.E.2d 139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

[8] To establish the capability component, the State must demonstrate that the 

defendant was able to reduce the contraband to her personal possession. Wilson 

 

5 Taylor does not challenge her conviction of driving while suspended.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2101 | April 17, 2019 Page 5 of 7

v. State, 966 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. Here, Sergeant 

Southerland testified that he found the oxycodone in the area of the center 

console and that the driver of the Explorer would have been able to reach the 

cellophane package. See Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268 (Ind. 1997)

(concluding capability element was established because contraband was within 

reach of defendant), modified on reh’g, 685 N.E.2d 698.

[9] Although the capability element is established because the package of 

oxycodone was within Taylor’s reach, we additionally note that constructive 

possession of items found in an automobile may be imputed to the driver of the 

vehicle. State v. Emry, 753 N.E.2d 19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Moreover, a trier of 

fact may infer that a defendant had the capability to maintain dominion and 

control over an item from the simple fact that the defendant had a possessory 

interest in the premises on which an officer found the item. Gray v. State, 957 

N.E.2d 171 (Ind. 2011). This inference is permitted even when that possessory 

interest is not exclusive. Id. The evidence showed that Taylor was not only the 

driver of the Explorer but also the registered owner. Thus, Taylor had the 

capability to maintain dominion and control over the pills. Her argument on 

appeal focuses on whether she had the intent to do so.

[10] The intent component is proven by demonstrating the defendant’s knowledge of 

the presence of the item. Grim v. State, 797 N.E.2d 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). 

Such knowledge may be inferred from the exclusive dominion and control over 

the premises containing the item Id. If, however, control of the premises is 

non-exclusive, the inference of intent to maintain dominion and control over 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2101 | April 17, 2019 Page 6 of 7

the item must be supported by evidence of additional circumstances indicating 

the defendant’s knowledge of the nature of the item and its presence. Cannon v. 

State, 99 N.E.3d 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. These additional 

circumstances have been found to include: (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 item to the 

defendant; (5) location of the item within the defendant’s plain view; and (6) 

mingling of the item with other items owned by the defendant. Id.

[11] There is no dispute that Taylor had a possessory interest in the Explorer. 

Further evidence at trial supplied additional circumstances that, combined with 

Taylor’s possessory interest in the Explorer, sufficiently establish her intent to 

maintain dominion and control over the oxycodone. The package containing 

the oxycodone was in the area of the center console of the Explorer in close 

proximity to Taylor and within her reach, in a vehicle she owned. Other items 

suggesting knowledge of drug activity are alprazolam, a controlled substance,

found in plain view on the front seat passenger’s floorboard of the vehicle 

owned by Taylor, and a digital scale in Taylor’s purse.

[12] For the reasons stated, we conclude that the evidence established Taylor’s 

capability to maintain dominion and control over the oxycodone and that it 

further supports a reasonable inference that Taylor had the intent to maintain

dominion and control over the oxycodone. Therefore, there was sufficient 

evidence from which the factfinder could have found Taylor guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt based on a theory of constructive possession.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2101 | April 17, 2019 Page 7 of 7

[13] Affirmed.

May, J., and Robb, J., concur.