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.

FILED
May 18 2012, 8:22 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: TIMOTHY J. BURNS Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana RICHARD C. WEBSTER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

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

No. 49A02-1110-CR-954

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Annie Christ-Garcia, Judge Cause No. 49F24-1102-CM-11960

May 18, 2012 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION VAIDIK, Judge

Case Summary Motique Orr appeals her convictions for Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor dealing marijuana. Orr contends both that her convictions violate double jeopardy and that there is insufficient evidence to support her convictions. We find that Orr's convictions violate double jeopardy under the same evidence test, so we reverse her possession of marijuana conviction. However, we find that the State has sufficiently proved the elements of dealing marijuana, so we affirm that conviction. Facts and Procedural History On February 20, 2011, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Michael Wright saw Orr driving a vehicle with a cracked windshield and initiated a traffic stop. Officer Wright asked Orr for her license and registration, and after checking Orr's driving status, he learned that Orr's license was suspended. Officer Wright then checked the driving status of the passenger of the vehicle and found that his license was also suspended. Because of the suspended license and the cracked windshield, Officer Wright issued Orr a citation and impounded the vehicle since neither Orr nor her passenger possessed driving privileges. Before having the vehicle towed, Officer Wright conducted an inventory search. In the center console, along with Orr's other personal belongings, Officer Wright found a set of digital scales and a bag of what he suspected was marijuana. Officer Wright arrested Orr and put her in handcuffs. He advised Orr of her Miranda rights, which Orr waived. Tr. p. 57-58. Orr admitted that the scales and the bag of marijuana were hers. 2

Orr also told Officer Jason Rauch, who was also at the scene, that she did not smoke marijuana, she just sold it. Id. at 61-62. The bag of marijuana was subjected to

laboratory analysis and confirmed to be marijuana weighing 10.08 grams. The State charged Orr with Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor dealing marijuana. A bench trial was held, and Orr was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Orr to 365 days on each conviction to run concurrently, with 321 days of each count suspended to supervised probation. Orr now appeals. Discussion and Decision Orr makes two arguments on appeal: (1) her convictions for possession of marijuana and dealing marijuana violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Indiana Constitution and (2) there is insufficient evidence to support her convictions. I. Double Jeopardy Orr contends that her two convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Indiana Constitution. Whether convictions violate double jeopardy is a question of law which we review de novo. Grabarczyk v. State, 772 N.E.2d 428, 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Article 1, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution provides that "[n]o person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense." Two or more offenses are the "same offense" under Article 1, Section 14 if, with respect to either the statutory elements of the challenged crimes or the actual evidence used to convict, the essential elements of one challenged offense also establish the essential elements of another challenged offense. 3

Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231, 1233 (Ind. 2008). Orr contends that her convictions fail the actual evidence test. Under the actual evidence test, the evidence presented at trial is examined to determine whether each challenged offense was established by separate and distinct facts. Id. at 1234. To show that two challenged offenses constitute the "same offense" in a claim of double jeopardy, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the evidentiary facts used by the fact-finder to establish the essential elements of one offense may also have been used to establish the essential elements of a second challenged offense. Id. Application of this test requires the court to identify the essential elements of each of the challenged crimes and to evaluate the evidence from the fact-finder's perspective. Id. Possession of marijuana is defined at Indiana Code section 35-48-4-11: A person who: (1) knowingly or intentionally possesses (pure or adulterated) marijuana, hash oil, hashish, salvia, or a synthetic cannabinoid; . . . commits possession of marijuana . . . a Class A misdemeanor. Dealing marijuana is defined at Indiana Code section 35-48-4-10(a): (a) A person who: . . . (2) possesses, with intent to: . . . (C) deliver; . . . marijuana, hash oil, hashish, salvia, or a synthetic cannabinoid, pure or adulterated; commits dealing in marijuana, hash oil, hashish, salvia, or a synthetic cannabinoid, a Class A misdemeanor . . . . The State acknowledges that the same evidence

Download Motique Orr v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law