Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL E. CAUDILL Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEPHEN R. CARTER Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana MICHAEL GENE WORDEN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JASON SOWERS, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 03A04-0612-CR-734

APPEAL FROM THE BARTHOLOMEW SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Roderick D. McGillivray, Judge Cause No. 03D02-0403-FD-0413

AUGUST 27, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION ROBERTSON, Senior Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Defendant-Appellant Jason Sowers is appealing his conviction after a bench trial of the Class D felony of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. We affirm. ISSUE Sowers states the issue as: "Whether the Trial Court abused its discretion and committed reversible error by finding that sufficient evidence was presented by the State to show that, as a matter of law, the Defendant Jason Sowers was guilty of operating a vehicle while intoxicated." FACTS State Trooper Thalls made a nighttime stop of two vehicles for speeding on the interstate. The lead vehicle was driven by Sowers, and was going 85 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour zone. Sowers was driving a pick-up truck that contained three

passengers. Thalls noticed that Sowers' pupils were dilated, which served to alert Thalls that Sowers might have narcotics in his system. Sowers had slow speech, and his

movements as he looked for his driver's license and vehicle registration were also slow. When Sowers and Thalls were in the police cruiser Thalls asked Sowers why there was a conditional status on his driver's license. Sowers said it was because of a prior marijuana possession conviction. Thalls looked at Sowers' dilated eyes and concluded that Sowers had recently smoked marijuana. Thalls asked Sowers when he last smoked marijuana. Sowers replied that it had been earlier in the day. When Thalls tried to narrow down the time that Sowers had smoked marijuana, Sowers denied smoking marijuana. 2

Sowers told Thalls he did not have marijuana on him, and that Thalls could search his truck. Prior to searching the truck Thalls again asked Sowers when he last smoked marijuana. Sowers replied that it was earlier in the day. One of the truck's passengers asked Thalls if he could put on Sowers' jacket. Thalls searched the jacket before giving it to the passenger. Inside Sowers' jacket Thalls found a bag of marijuana, a wooden box that held a smoking pipe, and a package of rolling papers. Thralls then arrested Sowers for driving under the influence of marijuana. Additional facts will be added if needed. DISCUSSION AND DECISION When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge witnesses' credibility. Ware v. State, 859 N.E.2d 708, 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We will consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and the reasonable

inferences drawn therefrom. Id. We will affirm a conviction if the lower court's finding is supported by substantial evidence of probative value. Id. When a defendant is

convicted on circumstantial evidence, we will not reverse if the trier of fact could reasonably infer from the evidence presented that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. To affirm, we need not find the circumstantial evidence overcomes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id. Instead, we must be able to say that an inference may reasonably be drawn from the circumstantial evidence to support the verdict. Id.

3

Pursuant to Ind. Code

Download Jason Sowers v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law