Court Opinion

ID: 9706727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:50:36.38061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:24.648021
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Garrard, J.
— I concur in the determination that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. I believe, however, the majority opinion is misleading to the extent it suggests there was no evidence of actual possession.
Of course, either actual or constructive possession is enough, and many times constructive possession may also circumstantially imply actual possession. This, however, is not always so. Indeed the significant connotation of constructive possession is that if an accused is in a knowing position of exercising dominion and control, it does not matter whether the facts are sufficient to additionally overcome a reasonable doubt as to his actual possession.
Thus, Justice Hunter writing for the majority in Williams v. State (1969), 253 Ind. 316, 253 N.E.2d 242, distinguished “control” from “possession” stating:
“Ordinarily ‘control’ means * * * power or authority to check or restrain; regulating power; restraining or directing influence * * * so, too, it may imply, or not imply possession, depending on the circumstances * * *.
“Our conclusion ... is this: that to prove control over a chattel or over other property, one does not need in all cases to show conduct which amounts to possession. Although control is a necessary element in proving possession, the converse is not true.” 253 N.E.2d 242, 246.
*653See, also, State v. Perry (1973), 10 Wash. App. 159, 516 P.2d 1104; State v. Riley (1970), 12 Ariz. App. 336, 470 P.2d 484; U.S. v. Pardo-Bolland (2d Cir. 1965), 348 F.2d 316.
The significant constructive possession cases, then, are those involving circumstances where contraband may be said to be under defendant’s control although it is conceivable that he has not, at the time of apprehension or discovery, actually physically had it in hand, as where it is found in the trunk of his car, Corrao v. State (1972), 154 Ind. 525, 290 N.E.2d 484, or on a table in the accused’s dwelling. Thomas v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 1, 291 N.E.2d 557.
In the case now before us the evidence, as set forth in the majority opinion, sufficiently negates all other hypotheses to permit the reasonable inference that defendant was in actual possession of the heroin at the time of his arrest and travel in the police car.
Accordingly, while the facts show dominion and control, they also show possession, and language to the contrary in the majority opinion is unnecessary.
Note. — Reported at 313 N.E.2d 101.