Court Opinion

ID: 9715296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:59:35.887618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:33.298436
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the affirmance of both convictions. With reference to Senteney, however, I do so only because certain evidentia-ry elements missing in Martin v. State (2d Dist. 1978) Ind.App., 372 N.E.2d 1194, are present in this case. More specifically, contraband was found in a box on top of the bureau located in the only bedroom in the house. That evidence permitted the trier of fact to infer that Senteney was in possession of the marijuana.
• Notwithstanding the weakness or implausibility of the isolated statement by the police officer that the box was found on top of the dresser, the trial court was entitled to believe that statement as opposed to the officer’s earlier and repeated statements that the only box found was located in a drawer. The fact that I would not have given credence to the isolated statement does not permit me to say as a matter of law that the trial judge could not have believed it.
*100In conclusion I must take issue with Judge Buchanan’s analysis of and reliance upon Ledcke v. State (1973) 260 Ind. 382, 296 N.E.2d 412. As he correctly observes, Ledcke involved a “manufacturing situation”, i. e., marijuana virtually covered the kitchen floor and was being processed and dried in the oven. The case does not support the broad generalization made by Judge Buchanan that the Ledcke court had concluded “that in a place where illegal activity occurs, a rebuttable inference of knowledge arises.”