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
Jun 19 2012, 9:15 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: PATRICIA CARESS MCMATH Marion County Public Defender Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana RYAN D. JOHANNINGSMEIER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

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

No. 49A02-1112-CR-1096

APPEAL FROM THE MARION CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Teresa A. Hall, Commissioner Cause No. 49F10-1108-CM-59716

June 19, 2012 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAILEY, Judge

Case Summary Victoria Peak ("Peak") appeals her conviction of Possession of Paraphernalia, as a Class A misdemeanor.1 She raises a single issue for our review, whether the State introduced sufficient evidence of her intent to possess paraphernalia to sustain the conviction. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History On August 22, 2011, Peak was alone and driving a small, two-door car in Indianapolis. Officer Philip Bulfer ("Officer Bulfer") observed that the tinting of the car's windows was so dark that he could not see inside the vehicle. Officer Bulfer checked the license plate number for the vehicle in his computer and was unable to retrieve any information regarding Peak's car from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles ("BMV") database. He therefore initiated a traffic stop. Upon stopping the car, Officer Bulfer obtained Peak's identification and determined from the BMV database that Peak's driving privileges had been suspended. He therefore arrested Peak. While he was handcuffing Peak, Officer Bulfer noticed that Peak's hands had burns on them characteristic of an individual who smokes methamphetamine or cocaine. Upon arrest, Peak was "not very cooperative" and "sporadically excited." (Tr. at 15) Because there was no one present to drive Peak's car from the scene, Peak was not sufficiently coherent to help him identify someone who could quickly remove the car, and he was concerned with becoming available to address 911 calls due to call volume that day,
1

Ind. Code

Download Victoria Peak v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law