Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 1 of 9

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Susan D. Rayl

Smith Rayl Law Office, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore

Laura Anderson

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Gregory Wayne Parks,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

October 18, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-151

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable James Snyder, 

Commissioner

Trial Court Cause No.

49G20-1606-F4-22060

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 2 of 9

[1] Gregory Wayne Parks (“Gregory”) appeals his convictions of Level 4 felony 

unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon,1 Level 5 felony 

dealing in marijuana,2 and two counts of Level 6 felony possession of a 

controlled substance.3

 Gregory argues the State did not present sufficient 

evidence he constructively possessed the gun and drugs found in a bag behind 

the driver’s seat of the truck in which Gregory was riding. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History4

[2] At approximately 10:45 p.m. on June 5, 2016, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police 

Department Officers Matthew Plummer and Austin Birch initiated a traffic stop 

after they observed a truck without a driver’s side headlight. When the officers 

approached the stopped truck, the driver, Michelle Parks (“Michelle”), 

attempted to exit the truck. The officers ordered the occupants to stay inside 

the truck but, as the officers were issuing these commands, Gregory attempted 

to exit the passenger side of the truck. After hearing the officers’ commands, 

both Michelle and Gregory complied and re-entered the truck.

 

1 Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5(c) (2014).

2 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(d) (2014).

3 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-7(b) (2014).

4 We held oral argument on this case on September 28, 2018, at North Decatur High School. We thank

school staff and students for their hospitality and counsel for their able presentations.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 3 of 9

[3] As Officer Plummer approached the truck, he detected an odor of raw 

marijuana. Once he made contact with Gregory, Officer Plummer observed 

two marijuana joints positioned next to a live nine-millimeter round of 

ammunition on the center console in plain view. Officer Plummer advised 

Gregory and Michelle of the reason for the stop, asked for their identifications, 

and asked to whom the truck belonged. After submitting their identification, 

both Gregory and Michelle stated simultaneously that the truck was “ours” and 

they were “getting mechanical work [done] to the truck.” (Tr. Vol. II at 12.)

[4] Officer Plummer returned to his vehicle and ran Gregory’s and Michelle’s 

identification to confirm their identities. He learned neither had a valid driver’s 

license. Based on this lack of driver’s licenses, coupled with the odor of raw

marijuana, Officer Plummer and Officer Birch handcuffed Gregory and 

Michelle and searched their truck.

[5] In addition to the marijuana joints and ammunition Officer Plummer initially 

observed on the center console, he found another joint on the front passenger 

seat. Behind the passenger seat, he found mail addressed to Gregory and 

Michelle. Behind the driver’s seat, Officer Plummer found a black messenger 

bag on top of a gas can. He opened the flap of the bag and found a “brick of 

marijuana inside of that bag.” (Id. at 14.) Officer Plummer then found a Smith 

and Wesson nine-millimeter handgun in the side pocket of the same bag.

[6] After finding the gun, Officer Plummer stopped his search and placed Gregory 

and Michelle under arrest. Officer Plummer then called another officer to the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 4 of 9

scene to process the gun. While they waited for that officer to arrive, Michelle 

indicated she did not know anything about the bag or its contents; Gregory 

similarly stated he did not know anything about the contents of the bag and 

said, “if he didn’t know about it, he shouldn’t be arrested.” (Id. at 15.) Officer 

Brycen Garner arrived and processed the gun.

[7] Officer Plummer then continued his search of the black messenger bag. He 

located a digital scale with methamphetamine residue on it; two smaller baggies 

containing small amounts of marijuana; and a baggie containing several smaller 

baggies, four tablets of Diazepam, which is a Schedule IV controlled substance, 

and eighteen tablets of Clonazepam, which is a Schedule IV controlled 

substance. Officer Plummer also searched Gregory incident to his arrest and 

found $390.00 in small denominations and a cell phone in Gregory’s pocket. 

[8] On June 8, 2016, the State charged Gregory with Level 4 felony unlawful 

possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Level 5 felony dealing in 

marijuana, Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine,5 and two counts of 

Level 6 felony possession of a controlled substance. Gregory was tried before 

the bench on December 11, 2017, and the trial court found him guilty on all 

charges except the Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine. On January 

4, 2018, the trial court sentenced Gregory to an aggregate sentence of nine years 

incarcerated.

 

5 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1(b) (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 5 of 9

Discussion and Decision

[9] When reviewing sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we consider 

only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the trial 

court’s decision. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). It is the factfinder’s role, and not ours, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence 

to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. Id. To preserve 

this structure, when we are confronted with conflicting evidence, we consider it 

most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. Id. We affirm a conviction unless no 

reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Id. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome 

every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; rather, the evidence is sufficient if an 

inference reasonably may be drawn from it to support the trial court’s decision. 

Id. at 147.

[10] Possession can be actual or constructive. Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268, 

1275 (Ind. 1997), modified on reh’g on other grounds, 685 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. 1997). 

As Gregory did not have actual possession of the contraband in question, we 

must determine whether the State proved he constructively possessed it. For 

the State to prove constructive possession, it must prove the defendant had the 

intent and capability to maintain dominion and control over the contraband. 

Id. To prove intent to maintain dominion and control, there must be additional 

circumstances supporting the inference of intent. Id. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 6 of 9

[11] Proof of dominion and control, and therefore knowledge, 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 v. State, 715 N.E.2d 833, 836 (Ind. 1999). Where a 

passenger is charged with possession, the evidence is more likely to be sufficient 

when the passenger could see the contraband and was in the best position to 

access it, and when no evidence clearly indicates it belonged to or was under 

the control of another occupant of the vehicle. Deshazier v. State, 877 N.E.2d 

200, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. “When constructive possession is 

alleged, the State must demonstrate the defendant’s knowledge of the 

contraband.” Bradshaw v. State, 818 N.E.2d 59, 63 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). 

Gregory argues the State did not provide sufficient evidence Gregory knew the 

contraband was in the vehicle. We disagree.

[12] Regarding any incriminating statements Gregory made, upon arrest, he told 

officers that “if he didn’t know about it, he shouldn’t be arrested.” (Tr. Vol. II 

at 15.) The State argues this statement, “[t]hough not an incriminating 

statement at first blush, demonstrated [Gregory’s] underlying assumption that 

denying ownership might help him avoid arrest and punishment. His statement 

was a calculated choice of phrasing that lends itself more to an inference of guilt 

than an honest denial of ownership.” (Br. of Appellee at 15.) 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 7 of 9

[13] Regarding the location of the black messenger bag behind the driver’s seat, 

Gregory’s position in the passenger’s seat indicated he could easily reach the 

black messenger bag. See Holmes v. State, 785 N.E.2d 658, 661 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2003) (Holmes constructively possessed marijuana found in a vinyl bag 

resembling a diaper bag on the floor behind the driver’s seat because it was 

within his reach). When considering the location of the drugs in a setting that 

would suggest manufacturing, we note the black messenger bag contained a 

large brick of marijuana, as well as multiple small baggies, which Officer 

Plummer testified suggested repackaging of contraband for sale. See Ind. Code 

§ 35-48-1-18(2)(A) (2014) (defining “manufacturing” in relevant part as 

“packaging and repackaging”). Additionally, Officer Plummer found $390 in

small bills in Gregory’s pocket, which Officer Plummer testified was indicative 

of dealing. (Id. at 49-50.) 

[14] The State contends also “it is difficult to imagine how [Gregory] could not have 

been aware of the presence of the contraband in light of the strong odor of 

marijuana emanating from the vehicle.” (Br. of Appellee at 16.) The State 

directs us to Corrao v. State, 154 Ind. App. 525, 290 N.E.2d 484 (1972), in which 

our court imputed knowledge of marijuana found in the trunk of a vehicle to 

the vehicle’s driver and the vehicle’s owner who was a passenger based on the 

smell of raw marijuana coming from the vehicle and their possessory interests 

in the vehicle. Similarly here, Gregory indicated a possessory interest in the 

truck when he answered “ours” simultaneously with Michele when asked to 

whom the truck belonged. (Tr. Vol. II at 12.)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 8 of 9

[15] Finally, the items located in plain view, the joints and 9mm bullet, link Gregory 

with the contraband and 9mm handgun found in the black messenger bag. In 

Lampkins, 682 N.E.2d at 1275, our Indiana Supreme Court held Lampkins’ 

proximity to contraband, there a Tylenol bottle containing crack cocaine, 

combined with other factors, proved Lampkins constructively possessed the 

contraband. Id. Further, in Woods v. State, 471 N.E.2d 691 (Ind. 1984), reh’g 

denied, our Indiana Supreme Court held the presence of ammunition matching 

the gun found in the vehicle, combined with other factors, proved Woods 

constructively possessed the gun in question. Id. at 694.

[16] Considering Gregory’s incriminating statements, the strong odor of raw 

marijuana, the presence of items suggestive of manufacturing and dealing, 

Gregory’s proximity to the black messenger bag containing the contraband, and 

the items in plain view linking Gregory to the contraband, we hold the State 

presented sufficient evidence he had the ability and intent to possess the black 

messenger bag and its contents, and thus the State proved Gregory 

constructively possessed the black messenger bag. See Deshazier, 877 N.E.2d at 

208 (totality of circumstances supported conviction based on constructive 

possession). 

[17] Gregory’s alternate explanations regarding the factors of constructive 

possession are invitations for us to reweigh the evidence and judge the 

credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146 

(appellate court cannot reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses). 

Further, this case was tried to the bench, and we presume the judge knows and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 9 of 9

properly applies the relevant law to the facts of the case. Laughlin v. State, 101 

N.E.3d 827, 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

Conclusion

[18] The State presented sufficient evidence to prove Gregory constructively 

possessed the drugs and gun found in the black messenger bag. Accordingly, 

we affirm his convictions.

[19] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Bailey, J., concur.