Court Opinion

ID: 9743984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:51:36.228988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:45.988532
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur with the majority's decision to affirm the trial court's denial of Isom's motion to strike, but I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to reverse on the issue of sufficiency of the evidence.
The evidence shows that Isom possessed .88 grams of cocaine in 10 plastic baggies. Although the majority finds this amount too small for the jury to infer intent to deliver, Officer David Eiler of the Muncie Police Department testified at trial that, based on his 22 years experience with the drug task force, .88 grams is a large amount of cocaine in that it is more than a typical addict would use in one day. Moreover, as the majority notes, the fact that the cocaine was packaged in 10 plastic baggies is further evidence supporting the inference that Isom possessed the cocaine with intent to deliver and not for personal consumption. See Berry v. State (1991), Ind.App., 574 N.E.2d 960, 968 (ample evidence supported inference that defendant possessed Dilaudid tablets with intent to deliver where defendant possessed more tablets than a typical user would possess in one day and the police recovered many small plastic bags and twist ties). The majority is clearly invading the province of the jury by reweighing the evidence and rejudging the credibility of witnesses. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.