Court Opinion

ID: 9711793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:39:25.348826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:07.522949
License: Public Domain

Prentice, J.
Defendant (Appellant) was convicted in a trial to the court for possession of narcotic equipment and violation of I. C. 1971 35-24-1-2 being Acts 1935, ch. 280, § 2, (1961 ch. 90, § 2, 1971 Supp. Burns Ind. Stat. Ann. § 10-3520 [c]). He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of from one to five years and fined $1.00 and costs. The affidavit read, in pertinent part, as follows:
“WILLIAM E. DABNER on or about the 1st day of October, A.D. 1968, at and in the County of Marion in the *181State of Indiana, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously possess and have under his control certain instruments with intent to unlawfully administer and use narcotic drugs, to-wit: EYE-DROPPER, NEEDLE, and COOKER, which said instruments were then and there adapted for the use of narcotic drugs by injection in a human being, then and there being * *
The appeal to this Court challenges solely the sufficiency of the evidence upon the issue as to whether or not the defendant’s possession of the contraband was with “intent to unlawfully administer and use narcotic drugs.”
When the sufficiency of the evidence is raised on appeal, this Court will consider only that evidence most favorable to the State, together with all logical and reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. Fuller v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 681, 271 N. E. 2d 720; Gibson v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 23, 271 N. E. 2d 706; Lambert v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 441, 249 N. E. 2d 502.
The conviction will be affirmed if, from that viewpoint, there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Fuller v. State, supra; Gibson v. State, supra; Taylor v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 170, 267 N. E. 2d 383.
This Court, on appeal, will not weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses. Fuller v. State, supra; Rusher v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 520, 270 N. E. 2d 748; Sanchez v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 140, 267 N. E. 2d 374.
The contraband was discovered when defendant was searched as an incident to his arrest for another offense. Also taken from him on this occasion, and introduced into evidence, was a toilet tissue which gave the appearance of being blood stained. The arresting officer testified that at the time of the arrest he examined the defendant’s forearm and found puncture marks thereon where the veins were raised and that it appeared to be swollen.
*182Intent is a mental condition. It is impossible to know with certainty the defendant’s intended use or disposition of the contraband. Nevertheless, a determination thereof must be made, and if it be done by the trier of the fact, we will not disturb it, unless it can be said that by reason of an absence of substantial evidence of probative value upon one or more material element of the crime charged, a reasonable man could not find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We recently held in Taylor v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 170, 267 N. E. 2d 383, that possession of the paraphernalia alone would not be sufficient and that the requisite intent could not be inferred therefrom. However, in Von Hauger v. State (1971), 255 Ind. 666, 266 N. E. 2d 197, we affirmed the conviction under this charge where, in addition to proof of possession, it was shown that the defendant was a user of narcotics, and attempted to avoid arrest.
In the case at bar, although we may not infer the intent from the possession alone, we believe that it may be fairly inferred from such possession, together with the puncture marks over the veins of the defendant’s forearm, evidencing recent injections.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Arterbum, C.J., and Givan and Hunter, JJ., concur; De-Bruler, J. dissents with opinion.