OPINION
SHARPNACK, Senior Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Defendant-Appellant Reynaldo Griffin appeals his conviction of possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of school property, a Class B felony. We affirm.
ISSUE
Griffin raises one issue for our review, which we restate as: Whether the evidence is sufficient to support the enhancement of the felony.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 24, 2006, at approximately 2:15 am., South Bend Police Officer Keith Walker was patrolling the area near Per-ley Elementary School when he observed Griffin guiding a moped down the middle of the street. Officer Walker, knowing that many thefts of mopeds had recently occurred, and observing that Griffin was pushing the moped, stopped Griffin to determine whether it had been stolen. At that point, Griffin had moved the moped to the curb immediately adjacent to school property. Officer Walker observed that the moped had significant amounts of tape on it and that a screwdriver was stuck in the ignition.
As Officer Walker continued his investigation, Griffin became frate. At one point, Officer Walker lifted the moped from where Griffin had placed it and observed some baggies on the ground directly underneath the moped. The baggies appeared to contain a white, rock-like substance that Officer Walker believed to be crack cocaine. Indeed, the substance was later identified as crack cocaine.
[523]*523Griffin was arrested for possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of school property. Griffin pled a defense pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-48-4-16 that he was "only briefly present near the school property and that no children were present." Griffin did not testify at trial, and no defense witness testified as to the defense. Officer Walker testified that he had watched Griffin for some time before stopping him..
Griffin was charged with possession of cocaine as a D felony and the enhanced B felony for possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. The jury found Griffin guilty of the enhanced offense, and Griffin now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Griffin contends that the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of the enhanced offense. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court considers only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.2007). Stated differently, the court looks only to the evidence favorable to the State and all reasonable inferences therefrom. Bennett v. State, 871 N.E.2d 316, 319 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), adopted by 878 N.E.2d 836 (Ind.2008). Courts of review must be eareful not to impinge on the fact finder's authority to assess witness credibility and to weigh the evidence. Drane, id. We will affirm the conviction unless " 'no reasonable fact finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Id. (quoting Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind.2000)).
In order to prove possession of cocaine as a Class D felony, the State must show that a person knowingly or intentionally possessed the drug. Ind.Code § 35-48-4-6(a). The offense is enhanced to a Class B felony if the person possesses cocaine in, on, or within 1000 feet of a public park. Ind.Code § 35-48-4-6(b)(2)(B)1 However, Ind.Code § 35-48-4-16(b) provides that it is a defense that (1) a person was briefly in, on, or within 1,000 feet of school property, and (2) no person under eighteen was in, on, or within 1,000 feet of school property.
Before we reach the sufficiency argument, we must address the parties' dispute over burden of proof. Griffin argues that Ind.Code § 35-48-4-16(b) contains mitigating factors that merely reduce, not exeuse, a defendant's culpability; therefore, the defendant has only the burden of placing the issue in question where the State's evidence has not done so. The State counters that the statute delineates an affirmative defense that must be proven by the defendant.
In Adkins v. State, 887 N.E.2d 934 (Ind. 2008), our supreme court analyzed Ind. Code § 35-47-4-3, a statute that reduces the Class D felony of pointing a firearm to a Class A misdemeanor upon the showing that the gun was unloaded. The court held that an unloaded firearm was a mitigating factor similar to sudden heat. We conclude that Adkins supports Griffin's argument.
In Adkins, the State charged the defendant with the Class D felony of pointing a firearm. Ind.Code § 35-47-4-3 provides, "A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded." At the conclu[524]*524sion of the trial, the jury was instructed that a guilty verdict of the Class A misdemeanor pointing a firearm was possible if the defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the firearm was not loaded. 887 N.E.2d at 9386. Adkins objected to the instruction, was overruled, and was subsequently found guilty of the Class D felony.
We affirmed the trial court but our supreme court took the case on transfer. The supreme court stated that "two respectable schools of thought have emerged in the opinions of the Court of Appeals": (1) "that the statute creates an affirmative defense with respect to which the defendant bears the burden of proof;" and (2) "that it is not an affirmative defense to demonstrate that the firearm is unloaded." Id. at 987. The court agreed with the second school of thought (expressed by Judge Crone in a separate opinion in Adkins ). The court held:
Judge Crone analogized the role that the unloaded firearm plays to that which "sudden heat" plays in prosecutions for murder. "Sudden heat" is not an affirmative defense in such a case (because it does not negate an element of the crime of murder) but a mitigating factor that reduces the defendant's culpability from murder to voluntary manslaughter. We agree with Judge Crone that the fact that a gun is unloaded is a mitigating factor that reduces a defendant's culpability from a felony to a misdemeanor, not an affirmative defense.
A defendant bears an initial burden by a preponderance of the evidence on any affirmative defense.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
SHARPNACK, Senior Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Defendant-Appellant Reynaldo Griffin appeals his conviction of possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of school property, a Class B felony. We affirm.
ISSUE
Griffin raises one issue for our review, which we restate as: Whether the evidence is sufficient to support the enhancement of the felony.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 24, 2006, at approximately 2:15 am., South Bend Police Officer Keith Walker was patrolling the area near Per-ley Elementary School when he observed Griffin guiding a moped down the middle of the street. Officer Walker, knowing that many thefts of mopeds had recently occurred, and observing that Griffin was pushing the moped, stopped Griffin to determine whether it had been stolen. At that point, Griffin had moved the moped to the curb immediately adjacent to school property. Officer Walker observed that the moped had significant amounts of tape on it and that a screwdriver was stuck in the ignition.
As Officer Walker continued his investigation, Griffin became frate. At one point, Officer Walker lifted the moped from where Griffin had placed it and observed some baggies on the ground directly underneath the moped. The baggies appeared to contain a white, rock-like substance that Officer Walker believed to be crack cocaine. Indeed, the substance was later identified as crack cocaine.
[523]*523Griffin was arrested for possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of school property. Griffin pled a defense pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-48-4-16 that he was "only briefly present near the school property and that no children were present." Griffin did not testify at trial, and no defense witness testified as to the defense. Officer Walker testified that he had watched Griffin for some time before stopping him..
Griffin was charged with possession of cocaine as a D felony and the enhanced B felony for possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. The jury found Griffin guilty of the enhanced offense, and Griffin now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Griffin contends that the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of the enhanced offense. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court considers only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.2007). Stated differently, the court looks only to the evidence favorable to the State and all reasonable inferences therefrom. Bennett v. State, 871 N.E.2d 316, 319 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), adopted by 878 N.E.2d 836 (Ind.2008). Courts of review must be eareful not to impinge on the fact finder's authority to assess witness credibility and to weigh the evidence. Drane, id. We will affirm the conviction unless " 'no reasonable fact finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Id. (quoting Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind.2000)).
In order to prove possession of cocaine as a Class D felony, the State must show that a person knowingly or intentionally possessed the drug. Ind.Code § 35-48-4-6(a). The offense is enhanced to a Class B felony if the person possesses cocaine in, on, or within 1000 feet of a public park. Ind.Code § 35-48-4-6(b)(2)(B)1 However, Ind.Code § 35-48-4-16(b) provides that it is a defense that (1) a person was briefly in, on, or within 1,000 feet of school property, and (2) no person under eighteen was in, on, or within 1,000 feet of school property.
Before we reach the sufficiency argument, we must address the parties' dispute over burden of proof. Griffin argues that Ind.Code § 35-48-4-16(b) contains mitigating factors that merely reduce, not exeuse, a defendant's culpability; therefore, the defendant has only the burden of placing the issue in question where the State's evidence has not done so. The State counters that the statute delineates an affirmative defense that must be proven by the defendant.
In Adkins v. State, 887 N.E.2d 934 (Ind. 2008), our supreme court analyzed Ind. Code § 35-47-4-3, a statute that reduces the Class D felony of pointing a firearm to a Class A misdemeanor upon the showing that the gun was unloaded. The court held that an unloaded firearm was a mitigating factor similar to sudden heat. We conclude that Adkins supports Griffin's argument.
In Adkins, the State charged the defendant with the Class D felony of pointing a firearm. Ind.Code § 35-47-4-3 provides, "A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded." At the conclu[524]*524sion of the trial, the jury was instructed that a guilty verdict of the Class A misdemeanor pointing a firearm was possible if the defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the firearm was not loaded. 887 N.E.2d at 9386. Adkins objected to the instruction, was overruled, and was subsequently found guilty of the Class D felony.
We affirmed the trial court but our supreme court took the case on transfer. The supreme court stated that "two respectable schools of thought have emerged in the opinions of the Court of Appeals": (1) "that the statute creates an affirmative defense with respect to which the defendant bears the burden of proof;" and (2) "that it is not an affirmative defense to demonstrate that the firearm is unloaded." Id. at 987. The court agreed with the second school of thought (expressed by Judge Crone in a separate opinion in Adkins ). The court held:
Judge Crone analogized the role that the unloaded firearm plays to that which "sudden heat" plays in prosecutions for murder. "Sudden heat" is not an affirmative defense in such a case (because it does not negate an element of the crime of murder) but a mitigating factor that reduces the defendant's culpability from murder to voluntary manslaughter. We agree with Judge Crone that the fact that a gun is unloaded is a mitigating factor that reduces a defendant's culpability from a felony to a misdemeanor, not an affirmative defense.
A defendant bears an initial burden by a preponderance of the evidence on any affirmative defense. But the defendant bears no burden of proof with respect to the mitigating factor of sudden heat, only the burden of placing the issue in question where the State's evidence has not done so. The State then assumes the burden of disproving the existence of sudden heat beyond a reasonable doubt. We hold the same rule applies with respect to Class A Misdemeanor Pointing a Firearm. That is, if a defendant charged with Class D Felony Pointing a Firearm seeks instead to be convicted of Class A Misdemeanor Pointing a Firearm, the defendant must place the fact of the gun having been unloaded at issue if the State's evidence has not done so. Onee at issue, the State must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was loaded.
Id. at 987-38. (Citations omitted).
Similarly, the statutory defense provided in Ind.Code § 35-48-4-16(b) does not excuse a defendant from culpability. It operates only to reduce the level of culpability when certain factors are present. Even if the factors are present, the defendant is still guilty of the base crime. Accordingly, we conclude that Ind.Code § 35-48-4-16(b) constitutes a mitigating factor that reduces culpability, and therefore the defendant does not have the burden of proof but "only the burden of place-ing the issue in question where the State's evidence has not done so." Adkins, 887 N.E.2d at 988. Once the defense is at issue, the State must rebut the defense by proving beyond a reasonable doubt either that the defendant was within 1000 feet of a public park more than "briefly" or that persons under the age of eighteen at least three years junior to the defendant were within 1000 feet of the school property.2
In the present case, the following cross-examination exchange between de[525]*525fense counsel and Officer Walker put into evidence the defense pertaining to the length of Griffin's presence within 1000 feet of school property:
Q [Wlhen you saw Mr. Griffin here [near the school] he was pushing the moped down the street, is that correct?
A Down the center of Campeau [a street running alongside the school], yes.
Q He wasn't-and I think you said that you were watching him for five minutes or so?
A I said that to him. I was sitting at the end of the street watching him. I didn't time it.
Q During the time you did watch him he was moving down?
A Yes, his feet were-
Q Walking along?
A Yes.
(Tr. at 183).
The jury, which was instructed on the defense, determined that Officer Walker's approximate five-minute observation of Griffin's walk down Campeau Street was sufficient to show that he was not "briefly" within 1,000 feet of the school. As we stated above, we will not impinge on a jury's determination unless "no reasonable fact finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146. There is no ironclad rule as to what constitutes a "brief" presence, and we cannot say as a matter of law that the jury's determination was unreasonable under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the State's evidence was sufficient to rebut Griffin's defense.3
Affirmed.
MATHIAS, J., concurs.
FRIEDLANDER, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part.