Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2489 | July 15, 2020 Page 1 of 10

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

Steven R. Knecht

Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Josiah J. Swinney

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Curtis Jarvis Carter,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 15, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2489

Appeal from the Cass Superior 

Court

The Honorable Thomas C. 

Perrone, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

09D02-1803-F2-6

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2489 | July 15, 2020 Page 2 of 10

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Curtis Carter (Carter), appeals his conviction for dealing 

in a narcotic drug (heroin), a Level 2 felony, Ind. Code §§ 35-48-4-1(a)(2), -

(e)(1); and dealing in cocaine, a Level 3 felony, I.C. §§ 35-48-4-1(a)(2), -(d)(1).

[2] We affirm.

ISSUE

[3] Carter presents the court with one issue, which we restate as: Whether the 

State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed heroin and cocaine 

sufficient to support his dealing convictions. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] Carter and Darrell Wright (Wright) have the same mother. Although they had 

fallen out of contact, the two became reacquainted in 2017. Prior to March 5, 

2018, Carter and Wright had both been dealing drugs. Carter, who went by the 

name Capo, mainly dealt in Monticello, Indiana, while Wright mainly dealt in 

Lafayette, Indiana. 

[5] On March 2, 2018, Carter texted username “TravD Friend” that “I’m almost 

there[.]” (Exh. Vol. p. 45). About an hour later, TravD Friend texted Carter a 

picture of a brownish substance on a scale that read “.84” and told Carter, “fuck 

bro, .84 man[,]” “we cool tgo, just hook it up in the next one[,]” and “u need a 

new scale haha[.]” (Exh. Vol. pp. 45, 47). Later that day, Carter and Wright 

drove a rental car to Chicago for the weekend. While Carter was in Chicago 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2489 | July 15, 2020 Page 3 of 10

that Saturday, he received a text message from TravD Friend asking, “u for sure 

gonna have the full g and gonna be in monti tomorrow rite?” to which Carter 

responded, “Yea bro[.]” (Exh. Vol. p. 46). On Sunday when Carter and 

Wright were still in Chicago, TravD Friend texted Carter, “bro!!! I need a .5 

pronto” followed approximately two hours later by a text from TravD Friend to 

Carter, simply stating, “broooooooo!” (Exh. Vol. p. 46). Carter also received 

texts from username “halie” stating, “Capo wya man[,]” and “Lemme know 

sum g. u said yu would be back yesterday. Im sick, my ppl sick.” (Exh. Vol. p. 

50). 

[6] On Monday, March 5, 2020, Wright and Carter left Chicago for Logansport, 

Indiana, with Wright driving. The Cass County Drug Task Force (DTF) had 

become aware that the phone number used by Carter to receive and send the

aforementioned text messages was associated with drug dealing. The DTF had 

procured a ping warrant to track GPS data associated with the phone number. 

The DTF had been monitoring the phone’s whereabouts in Chicago over the 

weekend and knew that the phone was heading south on U.S. 35, where a DTF 

official visually tied the ping signal to Carter and Wright’s car. After the DTF 

official observed the car driven by Wright committing two traffic violations, 

Deputy Ryan Preston (Deputy Preston) of the Cass County Sheriff’s 

Department initiated a traffic stop on U.S. 35 near 475 North, assisted by 

Officer Andrew Strong (Officer Strong) of the DTF, who arrived a short time 

later. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2489 | July 15, 2020 Page 4 of 10

[7] Deputy Preston approached the driver’s side window while Officer Strong 

approached the passenger side. Wright unrolled his window two inches to 

speak to the deputy. When Deputy Preston received no response to his request 

that Wright unroll his window further to ease communication, Deputy Preston 

told Wright that he would have his canine partner conduct a free-air sniff of the 

car. Wright placed the car in gear and sped away, leading Deputy Preston, 

Officer Strong, and other assisting officers on a high-speed chase through rural 

Cass County. On 200 North just east of U.S. 35, Wright drove through a 

“Road Closed, High Water” barricade with Deputy Preston directly behind 

him. Deputy Preston observed Wright stick his left hand out of the driver’s side 

window and drop a baseball-sized object. Wright and Carter’s car stalled in the 

high water, bringing the chase to an end. Deputy Preston searched the area 

where he had seen Wright drop the object and discovered a plastic bag 

containing what was later determined to be 72.48 grams of a heroin/fentanyl 

mix and 5.19 grams of cocaine. A search of the car after Wright and Carter 

were taken into custody revealed two cell phones on the passenger seat owned 

by Carter, one of which was the cell phone that was the subject of the ping 

warrant, one cell phone on the driver’s side, and one cell phone in the car’s 

center console. A fifth cell phone was found in the back hatch of the car in a 

backpack which also contained digital scales, small plastic baggies, a razor 

blade, and latex gloves. 

[8] Wright and Carter were placed under arrest and booked on charges of dealing 

and possessing heroin and cocaine. While he was being booked, Carter called 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2489 | July 15, 2020 Page 5 of 10

his girlfriend and told her at one point during their conversation, “I made my 

own bed. I gotta lay in it.” (Exh. 31 at 3:00). Throughout the day of March 5, 

2018, Carter continued to receive texts on his cell phone. Username “halie” 

texted him, “U back g?”, “Capo, wtf let me know something Im sick as fuck” 

and “Dude please hmu[.]” (Exh. Vol. 50). Username “Dustin” asked Carter, 

“When u gonna be down u needing a ride here?” and, receiving no response 

from Carter, texted him, “Julie is feelin sick n been drivin me crazy askin when 

u was supposed to be here a million times or if I talked to you yet[.]” (Exh. 

Vol. p. 51). 

[9] On March 5, 2018, the State filed an Information, charging Carter with Level 2 

felony dealing in a narcotic drug (heroin), Level 3 felony possession of a 

narcotic drug (heroin), Level 3 felony dealing in cocaine, Level 5 felony 

possession of cocaine, Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, and Class B 

misdemeanor visiting a common nuisance. On September 4, 2019, the trial 

court convened Carter’s two-day jury trial. Prior to the commencement of trial, 

the trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the visiting a common 

nuisance charge. The jury heard testimony that Chicago is a “source city” for 

heroin, that baggies, gloves, razor blades, and digital scales are all used by drug 

dealers to package narcotics for sale, and that possession of 72.48 grams of 

heroin was more indicative of a dealer than a user. (Tr. p. 178). Carter’s text 

messages were admitted at trial, including those referring to Carter’s clients 

being sick. A DTF officer explained to the jury that opioid users such as heroin 

addicts feel sick when they experience withdrawal. Carter testified on his own 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2489 | July 15, 2020 Page 6 of 10

behalf that, prior to March 5, 2018, he had been dealing drugs in Monticello

and that most of the text messages admitted at trial were about heroin, but he 

denied any knowledge of the heroin and cocaine found in the car on March 5, 

2018. The prosecutor argued during closing statements that Carter and Wright 

had jointly possessed the heroin and cocaine. The jury found Carter guilty on 

all charges except for resisting law enforcement. 

[10] On October 1, 2019, the trial court held Carter’s sentencing hearing. The trial 

court found Carter’s criminal history to be an aggravating circumstance, and it 

found no mitigating circumstances. Due to double jeopardy concerns, the trial 

court did not sentence Carter for his possession of heroin and possession of 

cocaine convictions. The trial court sentenced Carter to twenty years for 

dealing in a narcotic drug (heroin) and to ten years for dealing in cocaine, to be 

served consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of thirty years. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Standard of Review

[11] Carter challenges the evidence supporting his conviction. It is well-established 

that 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. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2489 | July 15, 2020 Page 7 of 10

II. Constructive Possession 

[12] The State charged Carter in the dealing Counts with “knowingly or 

intentionally possess[ing] with the intent to deliver [h]eroin . . . having a weight 

of at least 10 grams” and “knowingly or intentionally possess[ing] with intent to 

deliver cocaine . . . having a weight of at least 5 grams, but less than 10 

grams[.]” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 15). Thus, in order to prove the dealing 

offenses, the State was required to show that Carter possessed the heroin and 

cocaine found in the car on March 5, 2018. Carter argues that the evidence 

showed that only Wright possessed them.

[13] If a person does not have direct physical control over an item, he may, 

nevertheless, constructively possesses it if he has the capability and intent to 

maintain dominion and control over it. Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 

2011). When a defendant has exclusive possession of the premises where the 

item was found, an inference arises that he knew of the presence of the item and 

was capable of controlling it. Id. However, if possession of the premises is not 

exclusive, as is the case here, a trier of fact may still infer that a defendant had 

the requisite intent if additional circumstances indicate a defendant’s knowledge 

of the presence and nature of the item. Id. Examples of these additional 

circumstances include incriminating statements by the defendant, attempted 

flight or furtive gestures, a drug manufacturing setting, proximity of the 

defendant to the item, whether the item is in plain view, and other items 

belonging to the defendant in close proximity to the item. Id. These are merely 

examples of additional circumstances which may show constructive possession. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2489 | July 15, 2020 Page 8 of 10

Cannon v. State, 99 N.E.3d 274, 279-80 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. Other 

circumstances may just as reasonably demonstrate the requisite knowledge. Id.

at 280. 

[14] Carter acknowledges that the evidence showed that he was capable of 

exercising control over the heroin and cocaine at issue. However, he argues his 

possessory interest in the car was not exclusive due to Wright’s presence and 

that the State failed to show additional circumstances pointing to his knowledge 

of the presence and nature of the heroin and cocaine. While we agree with 

Carter’s argument that his mere presence in the car as a passenger was not 

adequate to demonstrate the requisite knowledge, we disagree with him that the 

State failed to show adequate additional circumstances indicating that 

knowledge. Carter’s text messages and his own admissions at trial showed that 

Carter and Wright were both dealing drugs, Carter was actively dealing heroin 

in the days leading up to the March 5, 2018, traffic stop, and Carter had clients 

who expected him to deliver heroin on Sunday, March 4, 2018. During that

weekend, Carter and Wright visited Chicago, a “source city” for heroin, even as 

Carter’s clients continued to inquire when he was to return. (Tr. p. 178). After 

the traffic stop was initiated, Wright was observed tossing a dealer’s amount of 

heroin and over 5 grams of cocaine out of the window of the car, and the 

subsequent search of the car yielded a backpack containing the tools of the drug 

dealer’s trade, namely scales, a razor blade, gloves, and baggies. On the same 

day that he was arrested and booked on heroin and cocaine dealing charges, 

Carter’s clients continued to inquire about heroin, and Carter told his girlfriend 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2489 | July 15, 2020 Page 9 of 10

in a phone call that “I made my own bed. I gotta lay in it.” (Exh. 31 at 3:00). 

The jury could have reasonably inferred from these additional circumstances 

that Carter travelled to Chicago to procure heroin to satisfy his impatient 

customers and that he, therefore, knew that the heroin and the cocaine 

packaged with it were in the car. 

[15] Carter attempts to argue otherwise by directing our attention to myriad

circumstances which he contends undercut the State’s showing, such as his 

testimony at trial that he did not know about the heroin and cocaine until the 

officer retrieved it from where it was thrown and that he had been smoking 

marijuana right before the traffic stop, which he would never had done if he had 

known there were other drugs in the car. Carter invites us to speculate that the 

bag containing the heroin and cocaine was small enough to be secreted under 

Wright’s clothing, making his contention that he had not known about the 

drugs more probable. These arguments are unavailing, as crediting them would 

entail consideration of the evidence that does not support the jury’s verdict

and/or a reweighing of the evidence on our part. Doing so would be contrary 

to our standard of review. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146. 

[16] Carter also argues that the absence of any incriminating statements or flight on 

his part, the fact that the heroin and cocaine were not found in a manufacturing 

setting, and the absence of any of his belongings found near the heroin and 

cocaine all meant that the State failed to make its case. However, Carter’s 

argument overlooks his comment to his girlfriend that “I made my own bed. I 

gotta lay in it[,]” which the jury could have reasonably inferred to be an 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2489 | July 15, 2020 Page 10 of 10

inculpatory statement. (Exh. 31 at 3:00). In addition, the factors listed in 

constructive possession jurisprudence are not necessary or exclusive. See

Cannon, 99 N.E.3d at 280 (“[T]he listed circumstances are not exhaustive.”). In 

other words, the absence of one or more of the circumstances which may prove 

constructive possession does not render the State’s showing inadequate. 

Because the evidence supported a reasonable inference that Carter knew about 

the heroin and cocaine in the car, we affirm the jury’s verdict. 

CONCLUSION

[17] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the State proved beyond a reasonable 

doubt that Carter possessed heroin and cocaine sufficient to support his dealing 

convictions. 

[18] Affirmed. 

Mathias, J. and Tavitas, J. concur