Opinion ID: 2241914
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Evidence of Intent to Deliver

Text: Goodner claims the State failed to establish his intent to deliver the cocaine. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the reliability of the witnesses when assessing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. James v. State, 265 Ind. 384, 354 N.E.2d 236 (1976). Instead, the evidence is considered in a light favorable to the verdict, combined with any reasonable inferences which may be supported by that evidence. Id. Intent is a mental state, and the trier of fact often must infer its existence from surrounding circumstances when determining whether the requisite intent exists. Mason v. State, 532 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind.1989). Here, however, the State provided the jury with direct evidence: Goodner's admissions. The jury could also infer intent from the substantial amount of cocaine found in his apartment and from its individual packaging. [4] Goodner possessed more than 8.25 grams of cocaine. The cocaine, which was packaged in nine separate bags, was a larger amount than a cocaine user would generally keep for personal use. The estimated street value was over $500. Detective Canon testified he knew how cocaine is packaged and was familiar with the price of cocaine on the street. He estimated that the individual bags would each sell for approximately eighty dollars, and Goodner himself referred to the bags as fifties in his recorded statement. The amount of cocaine, its packaging, Goodner's taped statements, and the detective's testimony are sufficient to prove Goodner's intent to deliver the cocaine.