Court Opinion

ID: 9916280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 17:03:43.540061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:24:56.467651
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                               Jan 09 2024, 9:06 am

                                                                                    CLERK
                                                                                Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                   Court of Appeals
                                                                                     and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Christopher Kunz                                           Theodore E. Rokita
Indianapolis, Indiana                                      Attorney General of Indiana
                                                           Kathy Bradley
                                                           Deputy Attorney General
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Steven T. Lakes,                                           January 9, 2024
Appellant-Defendant,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           23A-CR-1442
        v.                                                 Appeal from the Franklin Circuit
                                                           Court
State of Indiana,                                          The Honorable J. Steven Cox,
Appellee-Plaintiff                                         Judge
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           24C01-2105-F3-336

                             Opinion by Judge Weissmann
                    Chief Judge Altice and Judge Kenworthy concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1442 | January 9, 2024                          Page 1 of 7
      Weissmann, Judge.

[1]   Police stopped Steven Lakes for a traffic violation and found that he possessed

      sizeable amounts of methamphetamine and a substance resembling marijuana

      that tested positive for the “presence of marijuana.” For this, a jury found Lakes

      guilty of dealing in and possession of methamphetamine, possession of

      marijuana, and two other drug-related crimes.

[2]   On appeal, Lakes argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to

      support his conviction for possession of marijuana. He also alleges, and the

      State concedes, that his possession of methamphetamine conviction should be

      vacated on double jeopardy grounds. We agree on both fronts and thus reverse

      Lakes’s possession of marijuana conviction and remand for the trial court to

      vacate his conviction for the possession of methamphetamine.

      Facts
[3]   Brookville Police Lieutenant Ryan Geiser initiated a traffic stop of Lakes for

      failing to signal before turning and because Lakes’s vehicle had an excessively

      loud muffler. During the stop, Lieutenant Geiser detected a strong odor of

      marijuana coming from inside Lakes’s vehicle. A subsequent search of the

      vehicle revealed a clear bag with a substance that field-tested positive for

      marijuana. The search also revealed 10 grams of methamphetamine, a digital

      scale, a smoking pipe, and a small container holding pills of the controlled

      substance buprenorphine.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1442 | January 9, 2024        Page 2 of 7
[4]   The State charged Lakes with five crimes: (1) Level 3 felony dealing in

      methamphetamine; (2) Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine; (3)

      Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance; (4) Class B

      misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and (5) Class C misdemeanor

      possession of paraphernalia. A jury found Lakes guilty of all charges, and the

      trial court sentenced him to 15 years imprisonment. On appeal, Lakes

      challenges only his convictions under counts 2 and 4.

      Discussion and Decision

      I.      The State Presented Insufficient Evidence to Prove that
              Lakes Possessed Marijuana.
[5]   When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we

      consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the

      judgment. Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021). A conviction will be

      affirmed unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime

      proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge

      the credibility of the witnesses. Id.

[6]   To convict Lakes of the possession of marijuana, the State needed to prove,

      beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knowingly or intentionally possessed

      marijuana. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11(a)(1). The Indiana Code defines

      “marijuana” as “any part of the plant genus Cannabis whether growing or not;

      the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant, including

      hashish and hash oil; any compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or

      preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin.” Ind. Code § 35-48-1-19(a). This
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1442 | January 9, 2024       Page 3 of 7
      definition does not encompass hemp. “Hemp” refers to “the plant Cannabis

      sativa L. and any part of that plant . . . with a delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

      concentration of not more than three-tenths of one percent (0.3%) on a dry

      weight basis.” Ind. Code § 15-15-13-6.

[7]   These statutory definitions inspire Lakes’s claim. Read together, they

      distinguish legal and illegal cannabis substances by their concentration of delta-

      9-THC. Toledo Rojo v. State, 202 N.E.3d 1085, 1088 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans.

      denied. At bottom, “to be illegal, the concentration of delta-9-THC must be

      more than 0.3%.” Id. As a recent decision of this Court put it:

              Our General Assembly has established a clear distinction
              between legal hemp and illegal marijuana based on the THC
              concentration present in the plant material, the effect being to
              now require the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a
              substance is marijuana by proving that the substance's delta-9-
              THC concentration exceeds 0.3% on a dry weight basis.

      Fritz v. State, No. 22A-CR-2340, 2023 WL 7478355, at *8 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov.

      13, 2023).

[8]   This Court has lately vacated several marijuana convictions for the State’s

      failure to make this showing. See, e.g., id. at *8; Toledo Rojo, 202 N.E.3d at 1087-

      90; Fedji v. State, 186 N.E.3d 696, 707-09 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). The common

      thread in each of these cases was the State’s failure to present evidence

      establishing the THC concentration in the alleged marijuana. So too here.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1442 | January 9, 2024         Page 4 of 7
[9]    On the record before us, the only evidence that could be interpreted as

       establishing the delta-9-THC concentration of Lakes’s substance is that

       Lieutenant Geiser conducted a field test that revealed “a positive presence of

       marijuana.” Tr. Vol. III, p. 155. The details about how the field test arrived at

       this conclusion were not explained at Lakes’s trial. And though the State sent

       the suspected methamphetamine to the Indiana State Police Lab for further

       testing, the suspected marijuana was not tested.

[10]   This leads to the fatal flaw underpinning Lakes’s marijuana conviction: with the

       legalization of hemp, Lieutenant Geiser’s generic statement no longer satisfies

       the State’s burden of proof. Although “the State [does] not need to prove the

       exact percent concentration of THC,” it must still “prove the substance

       possessed was marijuana.” Fedij, 186 N.E.3d at 709. Because the difference

       between marijuana and hemp turns on whether the concentration of delta-9-

       THC exceeds 0.3% and the State did not make this showing here, insufficient

       evidence supports Lakes’s marijuana conviction.

[11]   The State’s arguments to the contrary fall flat. First, it alleges that Lakes

       essentially admitted that the substance was illegal marijuana when he described

       it as “weed.” Appellee’s Br., p. 12. But given the legalization of some forms of

       the cannabis plant, it is no longer clear beyond a reasonable doubt whether

       “weed” excludes legal products. See also Fritz, 2023 WL 7478355, at *8

       (rejecting a similar confession because “it is well-settled that a person may not

       be convicted of a crime based on a nonjudicial confession of guilt”). Nor does

       Lieutenant Geiser’s experience and expertise in identifying marijuana establish

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1442 | January 9, 2024         Page 5 of 7
       the substance as the illegal form of the cannabis plant. See id. (citing Fedij, 186

       N.E.3d at 709).

[12]   Though each being insufficient on its own, the State asserts that Lakes’s

       admission and Lieutenant Geiser’s identification combine to create a sufficient

       basis for Lakes’s conviction. To be sure, a handful of prior cases have taken the

       State’s view. For example, in Doolin v. State, this Court held that a police

       officer’s “experience, training, and personal observations, along with other

       circumstantial evidence, sufficiently established the identity of the substance as

       marijuana.” 970 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (collecting cases). But these

       cases pre-date the existence of legal hemp. Ind. Code § 35-48-1-19(b)(6) (2014)

       (redefining “marijuana” to exclude “industrial hemp”); Ind. Code § 35-48-1-

       19(b)(6) (2019) (changing the exception to simply “hemp”). Thus, the cases the

       State cites did not require a determination of the alleged marijuana’s delta-9-

       THC concentration, subsequently lowering the evidentiary bar for the

       circumstantial evidence to clear. Accordingly, we find the State’s cited cases

       inapposite on this point.

[13]   Finding insufficient evidence to support it, we reverse Lakes’s Class B

       misdemeanor possession of marijuana conviction.

       II.     Lakes’s Conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine
               is Vacated on Double Jeopardy Grounds.
[14]   Lakes next asks this Court to vacate his conviction for possession of

       methamphetamine because it is a lesser-included offense to his dealing

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1442 | January 9, 2024          Page 6 of 7
       conviction and is based on the same underlying facts. With the State conceding

       that this argument is correct, we agree and remand for the trial court to vacate

       Lakes’s possession of methamphetamine conviction.

[15]   Reversed and remanded.

       Altice, C.J., and Kenworthy, J., concur..

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1442 | January 9, 2024      Page 7 of 7