Rebecca Lawson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Oct 05 2016, 9:16 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as CLERK
precedent or cited before any court except for the Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, and Tax Court
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ruth A. Johnson Gregory F. Zoeller
Deborah Ball Markisohn Attorney General of Indiana
Marion County Public Defender Agency
Richard C. Webster
Indianapolis, Indiana
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Rebecca Lawson, October 5, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1603-CR-565
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court.
The Honorable Linda Brown, Judge.
State of Indiana, Cause No. 49G10-1511-CM-40204
Appellee-Plaintiff.
Shepard, Senior Judge
[1] Rebecca Lawson was convicted of one count of criminal mischief as a Class B
misdemeanor. On appeal, she contends the evidence is insufficient to support
her conviction. We affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1603-CR-565 | October 5, 2016 Page 1 of 5
Issue
[2] The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to
support Lawson’s conviction given that a second individual was present at the
scene of the crime.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] The evidence favorable to the judgment is as follows. On November 11, 2015,
Deborah Hardin left her job and drove to her daughter’s residence, arriving at
about 1:20 a.m. Hardin’s daughter, Simone Parrott, lived with her two children
at the residence, and Hardin’s son, Jason Parrott, was also at the house on that
occasion. Hardin parked her 1999 Chevy Tahoe behind her daughter’s house,
near a security light.
[4] At 2:30 a.m. or so, Simone was awakened by the sound of her dog barking.
She and Hardin looked out the window toward the back yard and observed
Lawson, who was wearing a dark blue sweatshirt and jeans, and another person
in back of the house near Hardin’s Chevy Tahoe. They then observed Lawson
and the other person run from Hardin’s vehicle to Lawson’s own gray Kia
parked in the alley and then drive away.
[5] Simone and Hardin immediately went outside to examine the Tahoe.
Although the tires were undamaged and fully inflated when Hardin drove from
work to her daughter’s house, all four tires were now slashed and flat.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1603-CR-565 | October 5, 2016 Page 2 of 5
[6] Hardin’s son Jason had dated Lawson, but they broke up the day before
Hardin’s tires were slashed. The break up was not amicable.
[7] The State charged Lawson with one count of Class B misdemeanor criminal
1
mischief. After a bench trial, the court found Lawson guilty as charged. The
trial court sentenced Lawson to 180 days in the Marion County Jail, with 176
days suspended. Lawson now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[8] When we review a claim such as Lawson’s, challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the
witnesses. Suggs v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1190 (Ind. 2016). We consider only the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. Horton
v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154 (Ind. 2016). A conviction will be affirmed if there is
substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense
such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065 (Ind. 2015).
[9] To establish that Lawson committed the offense, the State was required to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Lawson recklessly, knowingly, or
intentionally damaged or defaced Hardin’s property without her consent. Ind.
Code § 35-43-1-2(a). Because there were no witnesses who actually observed
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a) (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1603-CR-565 | October 5, 2016 Page 3 of 5
Lawson slash Hardin’s tires, the evidence presented was at least partly
circumstantial. Lawson contends that there is reasonable doubt because
another person was also present at the scene of the crime.
[10] When circumstantial evidence is used to establish guilt, the question on review
is whether reasonable minds could reach the inferences drawn from the
evidence. Maxwell v. State, 731 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied.
If so, the evidence is sufficient. Id. On review we do not determine whether the
circumstantial evidence overcomes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Id. Instead, we determine whether inferences may be reasonably drawn from
that evidence to support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[11] Hardin testified that her vehicle was undamaged when she parked it behind her
daughter’s house after work. When she was awakened at 2:30 a.m., she
observed Lawson and another person present near her vehicle and then run
toward a car. The tires on Hardin’s vehicle had been slashed and were deflated.
Simone also observed Lawson outside her house near the Tahoe, and saw
Lawson and another person run away toward a car. Jason saw the damage to
his mother’s vehicle and testified that he and Lawson had broken up the
previous day.
[12] Inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence support the conviction beyond a
reasonable doubt. The presence of a second, unknown individual at the scene
does not render the inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence insufficient
to support Lawson’s conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1603-CR-565 | October 5, 2016 Page 4 of 5
Conclusion
[13] In light of the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
[14] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1603-CR-565 | October 5, 2016 Page 5 of 5