Carolyn Bostick v. State of Indiana

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of Dec 31 2013, 9:35 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
JAY RODIA GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
RYAN D. JOHANNINGSMEIER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CAROLYN BOSTICK, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A05-1305-CR-226
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable William J. Nelson, Judge
Cause No. 49F18-1112-FD-85610
December 31, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NAJAM, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Carolyn Bostick appeals her conviction for theft, as a Class D felony, following a
bench trial. Bostick raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the State
presented sufficient evidence to support her conviction. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 5, 2011, Earron Coy, the loss prevention supervisor for Burlington
Coat Factory (“Burlington”) at the Washington Square Mall in Indianapolis, observed
“two females come into the store and select a display stroller.” Transcript at 11. The two
women then “started to push [the stroller] throughout the store with no child.” Id. Coy
thought this behavior was “suspicious” because “there was no child present.” Id. at 11-
12. Coy continued to observe the two women, and he witnessed them “select[] multiple
items of kids’ clothing and put[] it in the main part, [the] child seat of the stroller.” Id. at
12. The women then “covered up” the merchandise “with a blanket, which was also
Burlington’s,” and “passed all points of payment and walked outside.” Id. at 13.
As the women left the store, Coy called Duncan Flagg, an off-duty Marion County
Sheriff’s Deputy who was working security at the mall. Coy and a loss prevention
associate followed the two women outside and “approached them as they were trying to
load the merchandise into their car.” Id. at 14. Deputy Flagg then arrived, “placed [both
women] in handcuffs[,] . . . and escorted [them] back into the store.” Id. Coy recovered
the merchandise and Deputy Flagg “began . . . arrest paperwork.” Id. at 20.
On December 6, 2011, the State charged Bostick with theft, as a Class D felony,
for her participation in the theft of merchandise from Burlington. At her ensuing bench
2
trial on January 30, 2013, the State called Coy and Deputy Flagg as witnesses. Although
Coy thought Bostick looked “familiar” at trial, he could not specifically identify her. Id.
at 11. Deputy Flagg, on the other hand, recognized Bostick’s name and face from the
December 5 incident, and he correctly identified her in the courtroom. Id. at 18-19. The
trial court found Bostick guilty of theft, as a Class D felony, and it sentenced her
accordingly. This appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
On appeal, Bostick asserts that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to
support her conviction. When reviewing a claim of sufficiency of the evidence, we do
not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Jones v. State, 783
N.E.2d 1132, 1139 (Ind. 2003). We look only to the probative evidence supporting the
judgment and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence to
determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could conclude the defendant was guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to
support the conviction, it will not be set aside. Id.Bostick concedes that the State’s evidence demonstrated that a theft occurred from
Burlington on December 5, 2011, but she argues that the State did not present sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that she was one of the two women who committed that theft.
Bostick’s entire appeal is founded on Coy’s inability to identify Bostick at trial, which
occurred more than thirteen months after the theft. We cannot agree with Bostick that
Coy’s failure to identify her requires this court to vacate her conviction.
3
The State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Bostick was one of the
two women who committed the theft from Burlington. Coy testified that he had observed
the women loading merchandise into a childless stroller and leave the store with the
merchandise. He then followed the women to their car and confronted them, at which
time Deputy Flagg arrived and took control over the matter. And Deputy Flagg did
identify Bostick at her trial. Bostick’s argument on appeal is merely a request for this
court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do, and her reliance on case law in
which we held the State had presented insufficient evidence to support a conviction is
plainly inapposite on these facts. We affirm her conviction.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
4