OPINION
RUCKER, Judge
Appellant-Defendant David A. Neuhoff was charged with dealing in marijuana as a Class C felony. A jury found him guilty of the included offense of attempted dealing in marijuana, also a Class C felony. Neuhoff now appeals raising three issues for our review which we rephrase as: (1) did the trial court err in denying Neuhoffs motion to suppress the evidence, (2) was the trial court’s instruction on attempted dealing in marijuana erroneous, and (3) was the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction.
We affirm.
On June 10,1997, postal inspectors in Texas intercepted a package being mailed from Brownsville, Texas to an address in Evansville, Indiana. The addressee was Robert Nelson. The inspectors were suspicious of the package because of its size, weight, and city of origin. Wfiien the package was presented to a drug sniffing dog in Texas, the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. The package was forwarded to Indiana and the Texas authorities notified Indiana postal inspector Steven Sadowitz. When the package arrived Sadowitz shook it and believed it contained narcotics. A trained dog from the Indianapolis Police Department sniffed the package and alerted to the presence of drugs. Thereafter Sadowitz sought and received a search warrant for the package, and as a result discovered therein over eleven pounds of marijuana.
Disguised as a mail earner, Sadowitz delivered the package to the Evansville address. [891]*891The only person present at the time was Michelle Brown who ultimately gave the inspector the names of her roommates: Har-monie Culbertson and David Neuhoff. Sa-dowitz placed the package inside the door of the apartment. With Brown’s cooperation, Sadowitz and a uniformed officer hid inside the apartment. When Neuhoff and Culbertson arrived, Neuhoff asked Brown when the package arrived and whether she had signed for it. Acting nervously and commenting that the police were watching, Neuhoff moved the package from its position inside the door and toward the middle of the room. Shortly thereafter Sadowitz and the uniformed officer revealed their presence and arrested both Neuhoff and Culbertson. The State charged Neuhoff with dealing in marijuana as a Class C felony. Prior to trial Neuhoff filed a motion to suppress which the trial court denied after a hearing. At trial the marijuana was introduced into evidence over Neuhoffs objection. Ultimately a jury convicted Neuhoff of the included offense of attempted dealing in marijuana as a Class C felony. This appeal followed.
I.
Neuhoff first contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because there was insufficient probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. According to Neuhoff the only justification for authorizing the search was the alert by the two dogs. Continuing, Neuhoff argues the affidavit in support of the search warrant was deficient because it did not specify the dogs’ reliability as drug detectors.
We first observe that smell testing by a trained dog is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Kenner v. State, 703 N.E.2d.1122, 1125 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), reh’g denied; State v. Watkins, 515 N.E.2d 1152, 1154-55 (Ind.Ct.App.1987). Rather, the alert of a trained dog can provide the probable cause necessary to obtain a search warrant. Kenner, 703 N.E.2d at 1125. In this case we disagree with Neu-hoffs assertion that the probable cause affidavit was deficient because it did not specify the dogs’ reliability. It is true there was nothing in the affidavit concerning the reliability of the Texas drug sniffing dog. However that is not true concerning the Indiana drug sniffing dog. We find sufficient the affiant’s representation that the Indiana dog was recertified on June 6,1997, by the Indianapolis Police Department as a Narcotic Detective Canine; that the dog has participated in approximately 250 searches both in the field and in training situations; that the dog and its handler are certified yearly by the Indianapolis Police Department as a Dog Handler and Narcotics Canine team; and that the dog and its handler have received specialized training in the detection of the odor of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and meth-amphetamines. R. at 279.
The smell testing by the Indiana dog was sufficient in itself to support the issuance of the search warrant. However there was additional information in the affidavit to justify the warrant in this case. The package contained several indicia enumerated in the drug smuggling profile utilized by postal inspectors in determining the suspiciousness of parcels sent through the United States mail. The profile contains the following elements: 1) the source city is known for its illegal drug trade; 2) the package is an unusual size and shape; and 3) the return addressee is fictitious. People v. May, 886 P.2d 280, 282 n. 2 (Colo.1994).1 In his affidavit supporting the issuance of a search warrant inspector Sa-dowitz represented that Brownsville, Texas, the package’s origin, “is a major source city for narcotics in the United States.” R. at 279. He also represented that the package’s size of twelve inches by twelve inches by thirteen inches and weight of sixteen pounds contributed to its suspicious character. Although the return address did not appear fictitious, the alleged sender, Anthony Page, could not be located at the return address. Based on these circumstances, the package [892]*892was removed from shipment for investigation.
Probable cause has never been capable of precise definition, and its existence is fact sensitive to each ease. Figert v. State, 686 N.E.2d 827, 830 (Ind.1997). When deciding whether to issue a search warrant, “[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit ... there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found iñ a particular place.” Jaggers v. State, 687 N.E.2d 180, 181 (Ind.1997) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), tram, denied). On appeal we must decide whether there was a substantial basis for concluding the existence of probable cause. Figert, 686 N.E.2d at 830. “[S]ubstantial basis requires the reviewing court, with significant deference to the magistrate’s' determination, to focus on whether reasonable inferences drawn from the totality of the evidence support the determination” of probable cause. Houser v. State, 678 N.E.2d 95, 99 (Ind.1997). In the ease before us there was sufficient probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. Accordingly the trial court did not err in denying Neuhoffs motion to suppress and entering the marijuana into evidence over Neuhoffs objection.
II.
Neuhoff next complains the trial court’s jury instruction on attempted dealing in marijuana was erroneous. The instruction dictates in pertinent part:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
RUCKER, Judge
Appellant-Defendant David A. Neuhoff was charged with dealing in marijuana as a Class C felony. A jury found him guilty of the included offense of attempted dealing in marijuana, also a Class C felony. Neuhoff now appeals raising three issues for our review which we rephrase as: (1) did the trial court err in denying Neuhoffs motion to suppress the evidence, (2) was the trial court’s instruction on attempted dealing in marijuana erroneous, and (3) was the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction.
We affirm.
On June 10,1997, postal inspectors in Texas intercepted a package being mailed from Brownsville, Texas to an address in Evansville, Indiana. The addressee was Robert Nelson. The inspectors were suspicious of the package because of its size, weight, and city of origin. Wfiien the package was presented to a drug sniffing dog in Texas, the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. The package was forwarded to Indiana and the Texas authorities notified Indiana postal inspector Steven Sadowitz. When the package arrived Sadowitz shook it and believed it contained narcotics. A trained dog from the Indianapolis Police Department sniffed the package and alerted to the presence of drugs. Thereafter Sadowitz sought and received a search warrant for the package, and as a result discovered therein over eleven pounds of marijuana.
Disguised as a mail earner, Sadowitz delivered the package to the Evansville address. [891]*891The only person present at the time was Michelle Brown who ultimately gave the inspector the names of her roommates: Har-monie Culbertson and David Neuhoff. Sa-dowitz placed the package inside the door of the apartment. With Brown’s cooperation, Sadowitz and a uniformed officer hid inside the apartment. When Neuhoff and Culbertson arrived, Neuhoff asked Brown when the package arrived and whether she had signed for it. Acting nervously and commenting that the police were watching, Neuhoff moved the package from its position inside the door and toward the middle of the room. Shortly thereafter Sadowitz and the uniformed officer revealed their presence and arrested both Neuhoff and Culbertson. The State charged Neuhoff with dealing in marijuana as a Class C felony. Prior to trial Neuhoff filed a motion to suppress which the trial court denied after a hearing. At trial the marijuana was introduced into evidence over Neuhoffs objection. Ultimately a jury convicted Neuhoff of the included offense of attempted dealing in marijuana as a Class C felony. This appeal followed.
I.
Neuhoff first contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because there was insufficient probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. According to Neuhoff the only justification for authorizing the search was the alert by the two dogs. Continuing, Neuhoff argues the affidavit in support of the search warrant was deficient because it did not specify the dogs’ reliability as drug detectors.
We first observe that smell testing by a trained dog is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Kenner v. State, 703 N.E.2d.1122, 1125 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), reh’g denied; State v. Watkins, 515 N.E.2d 1152, 1154-55 (Ind.Ct.App.1987). Rather, the alert of a trained dog can provide the probable cause necessary to obtain a search warrant. Kenner, 703 N.E.2d at 1125. In this case we disagree with Neu-hoffs assertion that the probable cause affidavit was deficient because it did not specify the dogs’ reliability. It is true there was nothing in the affidavit concerning the reliability of the Texas drug sniffing dog. However that is not true concerning the Indiana drug sniffing dog. We find sufficient the affiant’s representation that the Indiana dog was recertified on June 6,1997, by the Indianapolis Police Department as a Narcotic Detective Canine; that the dog has participated in approximately 250 searches both in the field and in training situations; that the dog and its handler are certified yearly by the Indianapolis Police Department as a Dog Handler and Narcotics Canine team; and that the dog and its handler have received specialized training in the detection of the odor of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and meth-amphetamines. R. at 279.
The smell testing by the Indiana dog was sufficient in itself to support the issuance of the search warrant. However there was additional information in the affidavit to justify the warrant in this case. The package contained several indicia enumerated in the drug smuggling profile utilized by postal inspectors in determining the suspiciousness of parcels sent through the United States mail. The profile contains the following elements: 1) the source city is known for its illegal drug trade; 2) the package is an unusual size and shape; and 3) the return addressee is fictitious. People v. May, 886 P.2d 280, 282 n. 2 (Colo.1994).1 In his affidavit supporting the issuance of a search warrant inspector Sa-dowitz represented that Brownsville, Texas, the package’s origin, “is a major source city for narcotics in the United States.” R. at 279. He also represented that the package’s size of twelve inches by twelve inches by thirteen inches and weight of sixteen pounds contributed to its suspicious character. Although the return address did not appear fictitious, the alleged sender, Anthony Page, could not be located at the return address. Based on these circumstances, the package [892]*892was removed from shipment for investigation.
Probable cause has never been capable of precise definition, and its existence is fact sensitive to each ease. Figert v. State, 686 N.E.2d 827, 830 (Ind.1997). When deciding whether to issue a search warrant, “[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit ... there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found iñ a particular place.” Jaggers v. State, 687 N.E.2d 180, 181 (Ind.1997) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), tram, denied). On appeal we must decide whether there was a substantial basis for concluding the existence of probable cause. Figert, 686 N.E.2d at 830. “[S]ubstantial basis requires the reviewing court, with significant deference to the magistrate’s' determination, to focus on whether reasonable inferences drawn from the totality of the evidence support the determination” of probable cause. Houser v. State, 678 N.E.2d 95, 99 (Ind.1997). In the ease before us there was sufficient probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. Accordingly the trial court did not err in denying Neuhoffs motion to suppress and entering the marijuana into evidence over Neuhoffs objection.
II.
Neuhoff next complains the trial court’s jury instruction on attempted dealing in marijuana was erroneous. The instruction dictates in pertinent part:
[t]o convict the defendant of attempted Dealing in Marijuana, the state must have proved each one of the following elements: The Defendant
1. acting with specific intent to commit Dealing in Marijuana by knowingly possessing marijuana in an amount over ten (10) pounds with the intent to deliver it;.
2. did enter 930 Douglas Drive in Evansville, Indiana, to pick up a box containing more than ten (10) pounds of marijuana, and did physically move the box from one place to another.
3.which was conduct constituting a substantial step toward the commission of the intended crime of Dealing in Marijuana.
If the state failed to prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the Defendant [not] guilty of the crime of attempted Dealing in Marijuana, a Class C felony.
R. at 238-39. Pointing to sections 2 and 3 Neuhoff contends the instruction is mandatory because it compelled the jury to return a guilty verdict should the jury find the existence' of certain facts. More specifically Neuhoff argues that what constitutes a substantial step is a question for the jury to decide. The argument continues that here the trial court did not leave the matter to the jury, but rather instructed the jury on what constituted a substantial step.
A mandatory instruction is one which “attempts] to set up a factual situation directing the jury to a certain result.” Ajabu v. State, 677 N.E.2d 1035, 1039 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). Article I, § 19 of the Indiana Constitution provides “[i]n all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.” In Pritchard v. State, 248 Ind. 566, 230 N.E.2d 416 (1967) the defendant challenged the following instruction:
The Court now instructs you that if you should find that [the defendant was] guilty of cruelty or neglect of [the victim] and that as a result of such cruelty or neglect beyond a reasonable doubt [the victim] did sicken, languish and die, then you shall find such defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
Id. at 417 (emphasis in original). In finding this language to be erroneous, our supreme court held that a mandatory instruction which binds the minds and consciences of the jury to return a verdict of guilty upon finding certain facts, invades the constitutional province of the jury. Id. at 421.
We first observe that not only does the instruction in this case track the language of the Indiana Pattern Jury Instruc[893]*893tions 2 but also we approved a similar instruction in Taylor v. State, 659 N.E.2d 1054, 1059 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied,3 In any event we do not read the instruction here as mandatory. An instruction given to the jury must be a correct statement of the law, must be applicable to the evidence adduced at trial, and must be relevant to issues the jury must decide in reaching _ its verdict. Anderson v. State, 653 N.E.2d 1048, 1051 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). The mere fact that instructions refer to evidence in criminal proceedings does not itself constitute error. Wilson v. State, 263 Ind. 469, 333 N.E.2d 755, 763 (1975). The instruction in this case represents a correct statement of the law, and was applicable to the evidence adduced at trial. That trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the instruction.
III.
Lastly, Neuhoff contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction because his actions did not exhibit the requisite intent nor constitute a substantial step toward maintaining control of the package. "When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence our standard of review is well settled. We neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Minter v. State, 653 N.E.2d 1382, 1383 (Ind.1995). Rather, we examine only the evidence most favorable to the State along with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, and if there is substantial evidence to support the conviction, it will not be set aside. Nunn v. State, 601 N.E.2d 334, 338 (Ind.1992). The crime of Dealing in Marijuana, as a Class C felony, involves possession and the intent to deliver more than ten pounds of marijuana. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10. When a person attempts to deal in marijuana, he must act with the culpability required for commission of the crime and engage in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime. Ind.Code § 35-41-5-1(a).
Intent involves a person’s state of mind, and the fact finder “must infer its existence from surrounding circumstances when determining whether the requisite intent exists.” Goodner v. State, 685 N.E.2d 1058, 1062 (Ind.1997). Here, the record shows Neuhoff was aware of the package’s delivery and asked Brown when the package had been delivered and whether she signed for it. Neuhoff then moved the package around the room and paced nervously inside and outside the apartment because he thought the police were watching him. This evidence substantiates the inference that Neuhoff intended to possess the package but was apprehensive about opening the package because of the presence of law enforcement.
The evidence also demonstrates that Neuhoff engaged in a substantial step toward possessing the package. What constitutes a substantial step is dependent upon the facts of each case, but the requirement is a minimal one, often defined as any overt act in furtherance of the crime. State v. Van Cleave, 674 N.E.2d 1293, 1304 (Ind.1996). The determination of what constitutes a substantial step is left to the province of the jury. Burdine v. State, 646 N.E.2d 696, 699 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied. As noted when Neuhoff arrived at the apartment he questioned Brown about the circumstances surrounding the package’s delivery! He then moved the package around the living room of [894]*894the apartment with his foot and appeared nervous about opening the package. From this set of facts, a jury could have found that Neuhoff engaged in a substantial step towards possession of the package.
Judgment affirmed.
DARDEN, J., concurs.
SULLIVAN, J., concurs in result with opinion.