Jackie Harold Parsley, II v. State of Indiana , 119 N.E.3d 131 ( 2019 )

FILED
Jan 25 2019, 5:53 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ellen M. O’Connor Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jackie Harold Parsley, II, January 25, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-72
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Grant W.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Hawkins, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G05-1504-F5-13873
Sharpnack, Senior Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Jackie Harold Parsley, II, in conjunction with members of his family,
improperly claimed a $2 million dollar prize from the Hoosier Lottery through
a scratch-off lottery ticket. He and others then spent the proceeds on vehicles
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 1 of 16
and other goods. Parsley appeals his convictions of false passing of a lottery
1 2
ticket, a Level 5 felony; theft, a Level 5 felony; and five counts of money
3
laundering, all Level 6 felonies. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Parsley raises one issue, which we restate as: whether there is sufficient
evidence to sustain his convictions.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Parsley managed Parsley’s Package Liquors (PPL), a liquor store in Plainfield,
Indiana. PPL was a family business: Parsley’s grandparents had owned it, and
Parsley’s uncle, Jimmy Parsley, Sr., handled the accounting and taxes. After
Parsley’s grandmother passed away in 2012, Jimmy was the executor of her
estate and monitored the store.
[4] We will discuss the facts in more detail below, but PPL sold Hoosier Lottery
scratch-off tickets in addition to liquor. Store employees were forbidden to buy
or otherwise use lottery tickets sold at the store. The Lottery had suspended
1
Ind. Code § 4-30-14-3 (2014).
2
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2 (2014).
3
Ind. Code § 35-45-15-5 (2014). We note a discrepancy in the record as to Count VIII, the first of the five
counts of money laundering. The charging information, jury instructions, and jury verdict form all describe
that count as a Level 6 felony. Further, the State claimed at sentencing that the offense was a Level 6 felony,
and the trial court also described it as such. Conversely, the trial court’s chronological case summary,
sentencing order, and abstract of judgment all describe Count VIII as a Class D felony. We find no
explanation for the discrepancy. In their briefs, both parties describe the charge as a Level 6 felony, and we
will address it accordingly.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 2 of 16
PPL’s license to sell tickets from May 24, 2014 to September 26, 2014, for
paperwork issues, and Parsley was supposed to have returned all scratch-off
tickets to the Lottery after PPL’s lottery license was suspended.
[5] On October 3, 2014, Ashlee Campbell, now known as Ashlee Parsley, arrived
at the Hoosier Lottery’s offices in Indianapolis. She was accompanied by her
then-fiancé, Joseph Parsley. Joseph is Parsley’s brother. Ashlee presented a
winning scratch-off ticket from a game named “100 X the Cash.” Tr. Ex. Vol.,
State’s Ex. 22A. The prize was $2 million. During the prize validation process,
Ashlee told a Lottery employee she had purchased the ticket at PPL on October
1, 2014, at 8:30 p.m. She selected a lump sum payment rather than annual
payments through an annuity, and the Lottery gave her a check for
$1,139,948.09. Ashlee and Joseph bought a house, a vehicle, and a trailer for
themselves, and Ashlee bought a truck for Parsley.
[6] Jimmy soon learned that Ashlee had claimed a $2 million lottery prize through
a ticket she had purportedly bought at PPL. He was concerned that Ashlee
may have obtained the ticket improperly and contacted the Hoosier Lottery.
[7] The Lottery began an investigation in November 2014 and later contacted the
police. On April 22, 2015, the State charged Parsley with the offenses set forth
above as well as several others that the State later dismissed on the eve of trial.
Parsley was tried jointly with Ashlee and Joseph, whom the State had also
charged with various offenses. A jury determined that Parsley was guilty of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 3 of 16
false passing of a lottery ticket, theft, and five counts of money laundering. The
4
trial court imposed a sentence, and this appeal followed.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[8] When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his or
her convictions, “the appellate posture is markedly deferential to the outcome
below.” Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1181 (Ind. 2016). We neither
reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d
554, 558 (Ind. 2018). We instead look to the evidence and reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom that support the verdict. Leonard v. State, 73 N.E.3d
155, 160 (Ind. 2017). We will affirm the convictions if there is probative
evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.[9] The State alleged that Parsley committed his offenses in conjunction with
Ashlee and Joseph, and the trial court instructed the jury on accomplice
liability. “A person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes
another person to commit an offense commits that offense . . . .” Ind. Code §
35-41-2-4 (1977). We consider the following factors in determining whether a
4
During trial, the court granted Joseph’s motion for judgment on the evidence on all charges. Tr. Vol. IV, p.
194. By contrast, the jury determined Ashlee was guilty of multiple offenses. She appealed, and a panel of
this Court affirmed her convictions in a Memorandum Decision. Parsley v. State, No. 18A-CR-221 (Ind. Ct.
App. Dec. 12, 2018).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 4 of 16
defendant aided another in the commission of a crime: (1) presence at the scene
of the crime; (2) companionship with another engaged in a crime; (3) failure to
oppose the commission of the crime; and (4) the course of conduct before,
during, and after the occurrence of the crime. Wieland v. State, 736 N.E.2d
1198, 1202 (Ind. 2000). Accomplice liability applies to the contemplated
offense and to all acts that are a probable and natural consequence of the
concerted action. Id. It is not necessary for the jury to find that a defendant
participated in every element of the crime. Vitek v. State, 750 N.E.2d 346, 352
(Ind. 2001). Further, an accomplice may be convicted of aiding another person
in committing an offense even if the other person is acquitted of the offense.
Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4.
[10] Parsley claims the State failed to prove he had the mental culpability to commit
the offenses of which he was convicted. A defendant’s intent may be proved by
circumstantial evidence. Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018).
Circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to support a conviction. Jones
v. State, 780 N.E.2d 373, 376 (Ind. 2002). Circumstantial evidence will be
deemed sufficient if inferences may reasonably be drawn that enable the trier of
fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Pierce v. State, 761
N.E.2d 821, 826 (Ind. 2002).
II. False Passing of a Lottery Ticket
[11] To obtain a conviction of false passing of a lottery ticket as charged, the State
was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Parsley, as an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 5 of 16
accomplice or a principal, (2) falsely passed a lottery ticket (3) with intent to
defraud. Ind. Code § 4-30-14-3.
[12] It is necessary to begin our analysis with an overview of the Hoosier Lottery’s
rules and procedures for scratch-off ticket games, as described in the record.
The Lottery enters into licensing agreements with retailers to sell scratch-off
5
games. Retailers receive, and are required to use, lottery computers to track
tickets. The computers are connected to the Lottery’s ticket tracking system.
Retailers may also obtain vending machines to sell scratch-off tickets.
[13] The Lottery, through a contractor named IGT, creates and sells a variety of
scratch-off ticket games. The games vary in price from $1 up to $25 per ticket,
with prize values ranging from $1 to millions of dollars. When a retailer orders
tickets for a specific scratch-off game, the Lottery sends the tickets to the retailer
in packs. Each ticket and pack are numbered, and the Lottery keeps track of
which packs are sent to which retailers.
[14] Upon receiving a pack of tickets, a retailer is required to notify the Lottery of
receipt of the pack by scanning it at the store’s lottery computer. When a
retailer is ready to place the tickets on sale to customers, the retailer “activates”
a pack by scanning it at the computer once again. Tr. Vol. II, p. 89. The dates
of receipt and activation are tracked in the Lottery’s records. A ticket purchaser
5
Retailers may also sell draw ticket games such as the Hoosier Lotto and Powerball, but those types of games
are not at issue here.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 6 of 16
may validate a ticket, and thus confirm that it is a winning ticket, by scanning it
at a computer at any authorized lottery retailer. Validations are also tracked by
the Lottery. Retailers are required to maintain a separate bank account for
lottery purposes, and the Lottery has electronic access to the accounts. The
Lottery takes payment for ticket packs by removing the funds from the retailers’
bank accounts.
[15] Among other restrictions, retail store owners and employees, as well as relatives
who live with store owners or employees, may not buy or otherwise use lottery
tickets that are sold at that store. Ind. Code § 4-30-12-4 (1989). This
prohibition is explained during the licensing process, and the Lottery sends
reminders to retailers via monthly newsletters. Further, any lottery prizes
worth $50,000 or more may be validated at any retail location, but the prize
must be claimed in person at the Hoosier Lottery’s offices.
[16] The Hoosier Lottery may suspend or terminate a retailer’s license for a variety
of reasons. If a license is suspended, the retailer is no longer permitted to
activate or sell scratch-off tickets, and their computer is disconnected from the
Lottery’s system until the suspension is lifted. Suspended retailers are required
by their licensing agreements to return unsold tickets to the Lottery, which in
turn credits the retailers’ bank accounts. In general, the Lottery does not
independently track unsold tickets in the possession of suspended retailers,
expecting that retailers will want to return those tickets to receive credit from
the Lottery.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 7 of 16
[17] We now turn to the specific circumstances of this case. PPL was licensed to sell
Hoosier Lottery scratch-off tickets. The store had a lottery computer and a cash
register for lottery sales, in addition to a separate register for liquor sales. The
store also had a ticket vending machine. Parsley, as the store’s manager,
monitored lottery sales and interacted with Fronda Fisher, the Lottery’s sales
6
representative for the store. Fisher trained him on the lottery computer. She
knew Joseph and Ashlee because she saw them at the store from time to time.
[18] Parsley chose which scratch-off games to sell. Parsley’s uncle, Jimmy,
generally required that the more expensive tickets – the ones that cost $20, and
had correspondingly more valuable prizes – were sold in the vending machine
rather than at the counter to prevent theft. Parsley was authorized to deposit
proceeds from ticket sales in PPL’s bank account, and he usually made the
deposits.
[19] After Parsley’s grandmother passed away in 2012, Jimmy was the executor of
her estate. He and his siblings decided to sell the store. Parsley offered to buy
the store through a financing arrangement, but Jimmy wanted to receive an
upfront payment and sought out other potential buyers. Jimmy’s rejection of
Parsley’s offer caused friction between them.
[20] In May 2014, Parsley filed an application with the Hoosier Lottery, seeking to
renew the store’s license to sell tickets until the store could be sold. Parsley
6
Fisher was employed by the Lottery’s contractor, IGT.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 8 of 16
filled out the application, listing himself as PPL’s primary contact person. He
and Jimmy signed the application. Parsley also signed an attachment to the
application, in which he indicated he understood that if the store’s lottery
license was suspended, he was obligated “to return to the Lottery all Tickets,
goods, materials and equipment delivered to the Retailer under this Agreement
in the same condition it was given to the Retailer.” Tr. Ex. Vol., State’s Ex. 2.
[21] The Lottery questioned the renewal application because of uncertainty about
the store’s ownership status arising from the death of Parsley’s grandmother.
As a result, the prior license expired without renewal, and on June 24, 2014, the
Lottery placed PPL on suspension.
[22] Jimmy asked Fisher to pick up unsold scratch-off tickets so that PPL could
receive credit for them. On July 17, 2014, Fisher met with Parsley at the store.
She removed all tickets from the vending machine and looked in a box behind
the counter where she knew store employees sometimes kept packs of tickets
that were ready to be sold. Fisher did not find, and was not given, any tickets
other than those in the vending machine. Fisher did not search the entire store,
relying instead on Parsley’s representation that she had been given all unsold
tickets. She filled out a form indicating which tickets she had received, and she
left a copy at PPL. Fisher delivered the returned tickets to the Lottery’s offices
for processing.
[23] According to the Lottery’s records, on May 30, 2014, PPL had electronically
acknowledged receipt of ticket pack 57013. That pack contained twenty-five
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 9 of 16
tickets for the game “100 X the Cash,” with a sale price of $20 each. The prizes
for winning tickets from that pack ranged from $20 to $2 million. The tickets
were larger than the norm: approximately nine inches long and three and a half
inches wide. Tr. Ex. Vol., State’s Ex. 22A. The scratch-off coating on the
tickets was orange in color, but removing the coating revealed the game’s
numbers, printed on a pink background. Fisher did not receive pack 57013
from Parsley on July 17, 2014, and it was never returned to the Lottery.
[24] At some point after Fisher visited the store, Jimmy dropped by and discovered
that store employees were still selling activated scratch-off tickets at Parsley’s
direction. The tickets were for lower-stakes games, costing one or two dollars
each. He further discovered that store employees had paid out prize money for
ten to twelve winning tickets at Parsley’s direction, even though the tickets
could not be validated at the store because the computer had been deactivated.
Jimmy instructed the employees to stop selling tickets and to stop paying prizes
for winning tickets.
[25] The Lottery’s electronic records show that on September 16, 2014, someone
attempted to validate a winning ticket from the game “100 X the Cash” at a
convenience store a half-block from PPL. The ticket was number 7, from pack
number 57013. The validation attempt failed because pack 57013 had not yet
been activated.
[26] Parsley urged Jimmy to renew the store’s license with the Hoosier Lottery,
claiming customers had complained about the store’s inability to sell lottery
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 10 of 16
tickets. Parsley also texted Fisher several times in August and September 2014,
asking for her help in renewing the license. On September 23, 2014, Parsley
submitted another application to the Lottery. He had prepared it, and Jimmy
had signed it. Parsley listed himself as PPL’s primary contact person. The
Lottery approved the application and renewed the Store’s license, taking effect
on September 26, 2014. On the morning of September 26, 2014, Parsley texted
Fisher again to request assistance, asserting that the computer was still
inoperable. By that time, Jimmy had agreed to sell PPL to Payless Liquors, and
the transaction was scheduled to occur on October 3, 2014.
[27] PPL’s lottery computer was activated later on September 26, 2014. The
Hoosier Lottery’s electronic records show that on September 26, 2014, pack
57013 for the game “100 X the Cash” was activated at PPL’s computer at
around 5:08 p.m. Tr. Vol. II, p. 180; Tr. Ex. Vol., State’s Ex. 35. No other
packs were activated at that time, and pack 57013 was the only pack that was
activated at PPL between September 26, 2014, and October 3, 2014.
[28] Jimmy had installed a network of eight security cameras inside and outside the
store, allowing him to view both cash registers and the lottery terminal, among
other locations in the store. On September 26, 2014, his security cameras
recorded Parsley standing at the lottery computer at the time when pack
number 57013 was activated. Next, Parsley went outside, empty handed, and
returned to the store holding a scratched-off “100 X the Cash” ticket. He then
left again, walking down the street. The Hoosier Lottery’s records show that
within a few minutes, ticket 7 from pack 57013 was validated at a convenience
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 11 of 16
store a half-block from PPL for a $25 prize. The convenience store was the
same location where an unidentified person had attempted to validate the same
ticket on September 16, 2014.
[29] On September 30, 2014, Ashlee entered a different convenience store in
Plainfield and validated two “100 X the Cash” tickets from pack number 57013.
The tickets, numbers five and six, had prizes of $25 and $20, respectively.
[30] Meanwhile, Jimmy asked Fisher to return to PPL to collect the unsold tickets
that employees had been selling. He told Fisher he was selling the store and
wanted credit for the tickets before the sale. She met Jimmy at the store on the
morning of October 1, 2014. Parsley was not present. Fisher accessed the
lottery computer and scanned in six packs of tickets that Jimmy gave her. The
tickets ranged in cost from $1 to $5. Jimmy did not have any “100 X the Cash”
tickets.
[31] On October 3, 2014, the same day PPL was sold, Ashlee and Joseph arrived at
the Hoosier Lottery’s offices to claim a winning “100 X the Cash” ticket from
pack 57013. The ticket, bearing number 12, had a prize of $2 million. Ashlee
claimed she bought it at PPL on October 1, 2014, at 8:30 p.m., but a subsequent
review of Jimmy’s security camera footage showed that she did not buy any
lottery tickets at PPL on that day.
[32] Ultimately, eight winning tickets from pack 57013 were validated and claimed
between September 26, 2014, and October 5, 2014. Earl Andrew Morgan, an
investigator for the Hoosier Lottery, testified that in his experience there were
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 12 of 16
“red flags” that might cause the Lottery to question whether winning tickets
were obtained improperly. Tr. Vol. III, p. 110. One red flag occurs when all
the winning tickets from a pack are redeemed at locations other than the selling
retailer. In this case, several low-value winning tickets were validated at PPL
between September 26, 2014, and October 3, 2014, but none of the winning
tickets from pack 57013 were redeemed at PPL. They were instead redeemed
at retailers in Plainfield and Indianapolis. Another red flag occurs when the
winning tickets from a pack are not redeemed in roughly sequential order,
either from lowest ticket number to highest ticket number or vice versa. The
winning tickets from pack 57013 were not redeemed in sequential order. A
third red flag occurs when someone attempts to validate tickets from a pack that
has not been activated. Ticket 7 from pack 57013 was scanned several days
before being activated and properly validated.
[33] A jury could reasonably conclude from this mostly circumstantial evidence that
although Parsley knew he was barred from purchasing or using PPL’s scratch-
off lottery tickets, and he further knew he was required to return all unsold
tickets to the Hoosier Lottery after PPL’s license was suspended, he: (1)
secretly kept pack 57013 of the “100 X the Cash” game; (2) scratched off the
tickets to find the winners; (3) sought to renew PPL’s lottery license even
though he knew the store would soon be sold; (4) activated the pack once the
license was renewed; and (5) worked with Ashlee and Joseph to redeem the $2
million winning ticket from the pack.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 13 of 16
[34] Parsley claims Ashlee may have legitimately bought the $2 million ticket at
PPL on September 30, 2014, and merely misspoke about the date of purchase
when she claimed the prize. He further claims, and argued to the jury, that
Ashlee was not the person shown on a surveillance video validating tickets
numbers five and six at a convenience store near PPL on September 30, 2014.
Parsley also characterizes the Lottery’s data about sales and validations as
“more assumption and guesswork than proof.” Appellant’s Br. p. 16. These
arguments are merely requests to reweigh the evidence, contrary to our
standard of review. The State presented sufficient evidence of Parsley’s
fraudulent intent, and we affirm his conviction of false passing of a lottery
ticket.
III. Theft
[35] To obtain a conviction of theft as charged, the State was required to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Parsley, as a principal or accomplice (2)
knowingly or intentionally (3) exerted unauthorized control (4) over the
Hoosier Lottery’s property valued at more than $50,000 (5) with intent to
deprive the Lottery of any part of its value or use. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2.
[36] We incorporate our discussion of the facts set forth above. A reasonable jury
could have concluded from the facts most favorable to the judgment that
Parsley knowingly or intentionally worked with Ashlee and Joseph to cash in a
winning lottery ticket that he should not have had or used, resulting in Ashlee
obtaining a check from the Lottery for $1,139,948.09. Ashlee and Joseph
subsequently used the Lottery’s funds to purchase a house and vehicles for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 14 of 16
themselves, and a vehicle for Parsley. There is sufficient circumstantial
evidence of Parsley’s intent to sustain the theft conviction.
IV. Money Laundering
[37] To obtain five convictions of money laundering as charged, the State was
required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that for each of the five charges (1)
Parsley, as a principal or accomplice, (2) knowingly or intentionally (3)
acquired or maintained an interest in, received, concealed, possessed,
transferred, or transported the proceeds of criminal activity. Ind. Code § 35-45-
15-5. The State identified the acts and proceeds at issue for each count as
follows:
Count VIII Purchased a 2012 GMC Acadia
Count IX Purchased a 2013 Ford F150 truck
Count X Purchased real estate in Coatesville,
Indiana
Count XI Purchased a 2015 Trailer CH820
Count XII Transferred United States currency
between bank accounts
Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 45-46.
[38] We incorporate our discussion of the facts set forth above. Parsley does not
dispute that Ashlee and Joseph purchased the vehicles and the real estate, and
that they transferred some of the remaining prize money between bank
accounts. He instead argues that he did not knowingly or intentionally
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 15 of 16
participate in these transactions with the understanding that the lottery
winnings were the proceeds of criminal activity. We disagree. There is ample
circumstantial evidence that Parsley chose to conceal pack 57013 rather than
return it to the Lottery, and he worked with Ashlee and Joseph to claim the $2
million prize ticket because he knew he could not have done so himself.
Without Parsley, Ashlee and Joseph would not have had access to the winning
ticket.
[39] There is also evidence that Parsley was an accomplice to Ashlee and Joseph’s
use of the lottery proceeds. Ashlee told an investigator that she bought the Ford
truck for Parsley, and during a search of the truck an investigator found
Parsley’s wallet and identification. This is sufficient evidence of Parsley’s intent
to commit money laundering, as an accomplice. Parsley’s arguments are
requests to reweigh the evidence. See Scott v. State, 867 N.E.2d 690, 695 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain money laundering
conviction; Scott received and attempted to cash a check he had reason to
believe was stolen), trans. denied.
Conclusion
[40] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[41] Affirmed.
[42] Riley, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-72 | January 25, 2019 Page 16 of 16