Angel Renee Campbell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Aug 26 2019, 6:32 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Anne Medlin Lowe Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
James A. Piatt Attorney General of Indiana
Riley Williams & Piatt, LLC
Evan Matthew Comer
Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Michael Vo Sherman
Certified Legal Intern
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Angel Renee Campbell, August 26, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-217
v. Appeal from the
Hamilton Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff. S. Matthew Cook, Judge Pro
Tempore
Trial Court Cause No.
29D05-1802-CM-1516
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-217 | August 26, 2019 Page 1 of 5
[1] Angel Renee Campbell (“Campbell”) appeals her conviction for theft and raises
one issue, which we restate as: whether there was sufficient evidence to support
her conviction as an accomplice to theft as a Class A misdemeanor.1 We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On December 11, 2017, Jamie Byers (“Byers”), an employee of the Noblesville
Ace Hardware (“the store”), was working at the store’s cash register. Tr. Vol. 2
at 11. Campbell entered the store, approached Byers at the cash register, and
inquired about paint supplies. Id. at 11-12. Byers answered Campbell’s
questions and directed Campbell to the paint aisle. Id. Campbell returned to
the cash register and told Byers that she could not find the items she wanted.
Id. Byers left the cash register, returned to the paint aisle, and helped Campbell
find what she wanted. Id. When Byers returned to the cash register, she saw
that several Yeti drinking products near the front of the store were missing, so
she notified the store manager, Corey Musolf (“Musolf”). Id. at 13. Musolf
viewed security camera footage to confirm that items were taken before he
contacted the Noblesville Police Department. Id. at 20. The camera footage
showed Campbell walking into the store with a man, who was later identified
as Edward May (“May”), Campbell’s former husband. Id. at 20, 26. Campbell
and May were holding hands. Id. at 23. Campbell and May walked to the
1
See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-217 | August 26, 2019 Page 2 of 5
paint aisle, and Campbell then walked to the cash register to pull Byers away
from the register while May took Yeti cups and then left the store. Id. at 20.
[3] The State charged Campbell with theft as a Class A misdemeanor. Appellant’s
App. Vol. II at 3, 10. At the end of the bench trial, the trial court found
Campbell guilty as charged and sentenced her to one year in the Hamilton
County Jail, suspended to probation. Tr. Vol. 2 at 42-43. Campbell now
appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Campbell argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that she was an
accomplice in helping May commit theft as a Class A misdemeanor. When we
review the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge
the credibility of the witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind.
2005). Rather, we will affirm a conviction if we find that any reasonable
factfinder could find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when
considering all the facts and inferences that favor the conviction. Bailey v. State,
907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). The evidence need not exclude every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but it must support a reasonable inference
of guilt to support the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007).
[5] “A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over
property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part
of its value or use, commits theft, a Class A misdemeanor.” Ind. Code § 35-43-
4-2(a). An accomplice is any person who knowingly or intentionally aids,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-217 | August 26, 2019 Page 3 of 5
induces, or causes another to commit an offense. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4.
Factors to determine whether a person is an accomplice include (1) presence at
the scene of the crime; (2) companionship with another at the scene of the
crime; (3) failure to oppose the commission of the crime; and (4) course of
conduct before, during, and after the crime. Castillo v. State, 974 N.E.2d 458,
466 (Ind. 2012). The evidence need not show that the individual participated in
every element of the crime. Hart, 30 N.E.3d 1283, 1288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
Rather,
[t]here must be evidence [of] affirmative conduct, either in the
form of acts or words, from which an inference of a common
design or purpose to effect the commission of a crime may be
reasonably drawn. Each participant must knowingly or
intentionally associate himself with the criminal venture,
participate in it, and try to make it succeed. That said, the State
need not show that [the accomplice] was a party to the
preconceived scheme; it must merely demonstrate concerted
action or participation in an illegal act.
Griffin v. State, 16 N.E.3d 997, 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (internal citations
omitted).
[6] Here, the circumstantial evidence allowed the trial court to reasonably infer that
Campbell acted as an accomplice to May in his theft of merchandise from the
store. First, it is undisputed that Campbell was at the scene of the crime with
May. Tr. Vol. 2 at 12; Castillo, 974 N.E.2d at 466. Second, Campbell and May
were companions at the scene, evinced by their entry into the store while
holding hands. Tr. Vol. 2 at 20; Castillo, 974 N.E.2d at 466. The only time they
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-217 | August 26, 2019 Page 4 of 5
were not together was when Campbell asked Byers to accompany her to the
paint aisle of the store while May went to the front of the store and took the
items. Tr. Vol. 2 at 20, 35. Third, May and Campbell acted in concert.
Castillo, 974 N.E.2d at 466. After they separated inside the store, Campbell
distracted Byers by luring her into the paint aisle. Tr. Vol. 2 at 12, 20. Once
Byers was distracted, May went to the front of the store and concealed
merchandise in his jacket. Id. at 20. After May concealed the merchandise, he
exited the store, and Campbell left soon after without purchasing anything. Id.
at 13, 30. These facts make clear that Campbell had the requisite mens rea to be
convicted as an accomplice to Class A misdemeanor theft. See I.C. 35-41-2-4
(“A person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another
person to commit an offense commits that offense[.]”).
[7] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-217 | August 26, 2019 Page 5 of 5