Breasia Sawyer v. State of Indiana (mem. dec,) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 03 2017, 9:56 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Patricia Caress McMath Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Jodi Kathryn Stein
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Breasia Sawyer, February 3, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1608-CR-1832
v. Appeal from the Marion County
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Hon. Linda Brown, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff. The Hon. Allan Reid,
Commissioner
Trial Court Cause No.
49G10-1408-CM-40997
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1832 | February 3, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] On August 18, 2014, Appellant-Defendant Breasia Sawyer was shopping at
Walmart with her sister when a store employee observed her conceal towels in
her bag. The store employee also observed her move beyond the points of
purchase with sheets in her arms without paying. After she was intercepted by
the employee, Sawyer voluntarily gave a written statement in which she
admitted to walking out without paying for the items. Appellee-Plaintiff the
State of Indiana (the “State”) charged Sawyer with one count of Class A
misdemeanor theft on August 28, 2014.
[2] On appeal, Sawyer challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Specifically,
Sawyer raises the following restated issue: whether the evidence was sufficient
to prove that she intended to deprive Walmart of the value of the towels and
sheets that she carried through the exit doors without paying for them. Because
there was sufficient evidence such that reasonable minds could reach the
conclusion that Sawyer intended to commit theft, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On August 18, 2014, Sawyer was shopping in the Walmart on East Washington
Street in Marion County with her younger sister. Sawyer was familiar with this
particular Walmart because she use to work at the store. While the two women
were shopping, Marcus Shields, the store’s Asset Protection Associate, saw
Sawyer pick up some towels and put them in her purse. Shields also observed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1832 | February 3, 2017 Page 2 of 5
Sawyer picking up two sets of sheets before she walked past all points of
purchase and into the vestibule.1
[4] At that point, Sawyer was confronted by Shields. Sawyer was cooperative with
Shields and went with him to his office to fill out a statement form. On the
form, Sawyer wrote “I walked out of Walmart with a pack of towels [and] two
sheet sets.” Tr. p. 10; State’s Ex. 2. An officer from the Indianapolis Police
Department was subsequently dispatched to the store where the officer issued a
summons for theft.
[5] The State charged Sawyer with Class A misdemeanor theft on August 28, 2014.
After Sawyer failed to appear for two bench trials, she proceeded to a bench
trial on July 18, 2016. During her testimony, Sawyer admitted that she had
passed all points of purchase with the towels and sheets. Sawyer also testified
that she was only going to the vestibule to retrieve a cart and that Walmart
allows its customers to place unpaid items in their purses or bags. The trial
court found Sawyer guilty as charged and sentenced her to 365 days, with 349
suspended and twenty hours of community service per month while she is on
probation. This appeal follows.
Discussion and Decision
1
The vestibule is the area between two sets of doors that separate the store entrance and the parking lot.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1832 | February 3, 2017 Page 3 of 5
[6] On appeal, Sawyer argues that there was insufficient evidence to support her
conviction for Class A misdemeanor theft because there is no evidence that
Sawyer intended to deprive Walmart of the value or use of the merchandise
when she went through the exit to the vestibule without paying for the sheets or
towels. Our standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence claims is
well-settled. Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. 2000).
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine only the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the
verdict. We do not assess witness credibility, nor do we reweigh
the evidence to determine if it was sufficient to support a
conviction. Under our appellate system, those roles are reserved
for the finder of fact. Instead, we consider only the evidence
most favorable to the trial court ruling and affirm the conviction
unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the
crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This evidence need not
overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it is
sufficient so long as an inference may reasonably be drawn from
it to support the verdict.
Lock v. State, 971 N.E.2d 71, 74 (Ind. 2012) (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted). The trier of fact is responsible for resolving conflicts of
testimony, determining the weight of the evidence, and evaluating the
credibility of the witnesses. Jones v. State, 701 N.E.2d 863, 867 (Ind. Ct. App.
1998).
[7] Under Indiana Code section 35-43-4-2, “[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,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1832 | February 3, 2017 Page 4 of 5
a Class A misdemeanor.” “Intent is a mental function, and without a
confession, it must be determined from a consideration of the conduct and the
natural consequences of the conduct giving rise to the charge that the defendant
committed theft.” Long v. State, 867 N.E.2d 606, 614 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “Accordingly, 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.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
[8] Sawyer asserted during trial that she took the items with her past the exit doors
in order to retrieve a cart and that Walmart allowed customers to store unpaid
items in their purses or bags. The trial court, however, did not find Sawyer’s
“demeanor, or her testimony very credible.” Tr. p. 26. The trial court also
found that “if [Sawyer] worked at [Walmart] then she certainly . . .
[understood] the rules about passing the last point of purchase. If you are going
to get a cart, you do not carry unpaid merchandise with you out to get a cart.”
Tr. p. 26. Furthermore, the evidence shows that Sawyer wrote a voluntary
statement in which she admitted to walking out of the store with the unpaid
merchandise. Reviewing only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences
that would support the verdict, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to
support the trial court’s conclusion that Sawyer committed theft beyond a
reasonable doubt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Vaidik, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1832 | February 3, 2017 Page 5 of 5