Sparko Spearman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Oct 17 2018, 9:29 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Victoria L. Bailey Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Timothy J. Burns Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Sparko Spearman, October 17, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1084
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Helen W. Marchal,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G15-1610-F6-039833
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
[1] Sparko Spearman appeals her convictions for Class A misdemeanor resisting
law enforcement (by fleeing) and Class A misdemeanor driving while
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1084 | October 17, 2018 Page 1 of 2
suspended. Spearman does not dispute that she was in a car that fled from a
state trooper; she contends only that the State failed to prove that she was the
driver of the car. We disagree. The State’s evidence was easily sufficient to
identify Spearman as the driver. Most notably, the trooper testified that
Spearman exited the driver’s door and told him that she did not stop because
her boyfriend told her to “keep going.” Tr. pp. 60, 105. Spearman does not
dispute this evidence but claims that her own trial testimony—that her
intoxicated boyfriend was driving and that she merely switched seats with him
as the car came to a stop—is “no less credible” than the trooper’s testimony.
Appellant’s Br. p. 10. This is merely a request for us to decide who is more
believable, which is the trier of fact’s role, not ours. Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d
878, 882 (Ind. 2017). We therefore affirm Spearman’s convictions.
[2] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Kirsch, J, concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1084 | October 17, 2018 Page 2 of 2