R.W. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 05 2018, 6:42 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jerry T. Drook Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion, Indiana Attorney General
Henry A. Flores, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
R.W., December 5, 2018
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-JV-869
v. Appeal from the Grant Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Dana J.
Appellee-Petitioner Kenworthy, Judge
The Honorable Brian F. McLane,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
27D02-1711-JD-171
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-869 | December 5, 2018 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] R.W. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her juvenile
delinquency adjudication for neglect of a dependent, a level 6 felony if
committed by an adult. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History1
[2] The facts most favorable to the delinquency adjudication are as follows. On
September 16, 2017, R.W.’s boyfriend Jaylen Weaver corresponded through
Facebook with Jaydon Garcia to set up a “weed transaction.” Tr. at 81-82.
The next day, R.W. and Weaver got into his car with their seven-month-old
daughter, whom they put in the back seat. Weaver drove behind a doughnut
shop in Marion to meet Garcia and Reese Ragon and sell them marijuana. Id.
at 30, 191. Garcia and Ragon approached the driver’s side of the car. Garcia
saw Weaver with a “scale on the floor in between his legs” and “several bags of
weed.” Id. at 109. After Garcia gave Weaver $120 for a bag of marijuana,
Garcia noticed that the marijuana contained a lot of seeds. Garcia decided that
he did not like the quality of the marijuana and demanded that Weaver give
him his money back. Id. at 106, 112. An argument ensued between Garcia and
Weaver. As the argument escalated, Garcia observed a handgun under R.W.’s
legs. Garcia turned to Ragon and said, “[B]ro the[y] got a gun.” Id. at 103.
1
We remind R.W.’s counsel that an appellant’s statement of facts “shall be stated in accordance with
the standard of review appropriate to the judgment or order being appealed” and “shall be in narrative
form and shall not be a witness by witness summary of the testimony.” Ind. Appellate Rule
46(A)(6)(b)-(c).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-869 | December 5, 2018 Page 2 of 6
Garcia and Ragon took off running. Id. at 34, 91. Gunfire was exchanged
between Ragon and Weaver. Ragon sustained a gunshot wound to his leg and
was air-lifted to a hospital. Weaver drove to his mother’s house, where he
dropped off R.W. and their daughter. At the scene, police recovered a pistol in
the road that belonged to Ragon, a backpack, and raw marijuana. Id. at 11-12,
101-05. The police also located Weaver’s car, which had been damaged by a
bullet that hit the rear driver’s-side window. State’s Exs. 8-9.
[3] The State filed a delinquency petition alleging that R.W. committed conduct
which, if committed by an adult, amounted to level 6 felony neglect of a
dependent and class A misdemeanor dealing in marijuana. At the factfinding
hearing, the State offered into evidence Facebook messages that were sent
between R.W., an unknown third party, and Weaver a few days prior to the
drug deal. Grant County Sheriff’s Department Detective Erin Keppler testified
that an unknown third party contacted R.W. through her Facebook page to find
out if Weaver could “front me one till Friday.” Tr. at 177. R.W. sent a
message to Weaver, who responded, “how much.” Id. at 178. R.W. then
responded, “he said a gram.” Id.; State’s Exs. 10-11. At the hearing, R.W.
denied sending the Facebook message to Weaver but nevertheless
acknowledged that “1 grams sound like weed, it sounds like deals.” Tr. at 205.
[4] The trial court dismissed the marijuana allegation for lack of evidence but
entered a true finding against R.W. on the neglect of a dependent allegation.
The court sentenced R.W. to formal probation for eight months with 120 days
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-869 | December 5, 2018 Page 3 of 6
in detention and ninety-nine days suspended. R.W. now appeals. Additional
facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion and Decision
[5] R.W. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her delinquency
adjudication. Our standard of review for claims of insufficient evidence with
respect to juvenile delinquency adjudications is well settled:
We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of
witnesses. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the juvenile committed the charged offense. We examine only
the evidence most favorable to the judgment along with all
reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. We will affirm if
there exists substantive evidence of probative value to establish
every material element of the offense. Further, it is the function
of the trier of fact to resolve conflicts in testimony and to
determine the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the
witnesses.
T.G. v. State, 3 N.E.3d 19, 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting K.D. v. State, 754
N.E.2d 36, 38-39 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)), trans. denied.
[6] R.W. argues that the evidence presented at the factfinding hearing was
insufficient to prove that she committed neglect of a dependent. The State was
required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that R.W., having the care of a
dependent, knowingly or intentionally placed the dependent in a situation that
endangered the dependent’s life or health. Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4(a)(1). In the
delinquency petition, the State alleged that R.W. knowingly or intentionally
placed her daughter in a situation that endangered her daughter’s life or health
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-869 | December 5, 2018 Page 4 of 6
by transporting her daughter “in a car to an illegal drug deal wherein a gunfight
occurred critically wounding one of the participants, thus exposing the
dependent to said violence.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 8. To establish that
R.W. knowingly endangered her daughter, the State was required to prove that
she was “aware of a high probability” that she was doing so. Ind. Code § 35-
41-2-2(b). “Intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence, and it may be
inferred from a defendant’s conduct and the natural and usual sequence to
which such conduct logically and reasonably points.” Long v. State, 935 N.E.2d
194, 197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.
[7] R.W. asserts that she was not aware that Weaver “had plans to stop and sell
marijuana” and that she did not have “prior knowledge of [Weaver’s] gun or
drug history.” Appellant’s Br. at 13, 15. Here, the State offered into evidence
Facebook messages between R.W. and Weaver regarding fronting a third party
a gram of marijuana, which establish that R.W. was aware that Weaver was
dealing marijuana. Garcia stated that as he stood next to Weaver’s car door, he
saw a “scale on the floor in between his legs” and “several bags of weed.” Id. at
109. Furthermore, Garcia testified that he observed R.W. with a gun under her
legs and that when the argument escalated between himself and Weaver, R.W.
“moved her leg and started to fiddle with the gun and put her hand on it.” Tr.
at 89-90.
[8] We reject R.W.’s self-serving argument that she was merely an “innocent
bystander.” Appellant’s Br. at 13. R.W.’s argument is merely a request to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-869 | December 5, 2018 Page 5 of 6
reweigh the evidence and judge witness credibility, which we must decline.
Accordingly, we affirm.
[9] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-869 | December 5, 2018 Page 6 of 6